Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Constitutional Convention

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the Constitutional Convention.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): Preparations for the Convention are well under way and I shall announce the date of the elections to it and the name of the chairman at the appropriate time.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that talk of postponement is without foundation? Is he still of the view that the chairman of the Convention must necessarily be an Ulsterman?

Mr. Rees: I certainly have not chosen the date, and no question of postponement arises. There will be an appropriate moment to decide on the date. The chairman will be an Ulsterman.

Mr. David James: Will the Secretary of State bear in find that if the cease-fire holds there may be great advantage in postponing this election to enable moderate opinion to formulate?

Mr. Rees: I shall certainly take everything into account in choosing the date. I have not got a date marked in the diary. I have always had in mind getting beyond the end of February and the new register. I shall take all matters into account. What I must not and would not want to do is to choose dates which are beneficial to a party. I must choose dates which are beneficial to Northern Ireland.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the great priority is to ensure that the uncertainty is ended, and that this can be done only by freshly elected representatives in Northern Ireland sitting down and discussing the matter together?

Mr. Rees: I agree that what matters in Northern Ireland is to get freshly elected representatives to a convention, and not to an assembly. That is absolutely right. I recall that in the past when dates have been announced for elections events have blown them off course. It is easy to be blown off course in Northern Ireland. Therefore, perhaps I may be allowed to choose the date in my own time, which I hope will be to the advantage of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in consultation with likely candidates for the chairmanship of the Constitutional Convention; and whether there has been or will be any communication with the Eire Government about the choice of a chairman.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I shall announce the name of the chairman at the appropriate time.
The choice of the chairman is entirely a matter for Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Kilfedder: I appreciate the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has given, but will he refrain from making his choice of chairman until after the first meeting of the Convention, so as to give the elected representatives an opportunity to express their view on a suitable, agreed candidate, or will he at least wait until he has had talks with those who have been elected to the Convention?

Mr. Rees: Under the legislation, this is one of the few things that quite properly, lie with Her Majesty's Government. After the first day or two the procedures will be a matter for the Convention. One of the best things I can do is to find an Ulsterman who, by his standing and stature, will be accepted by the Convention. I am sure that I can do this.

Mr. Fitt: To reinforce what has been said by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), may I ask whether the Secretary of State is aware of the crucial


importance of finding the right personality to be the chairman of the Convention? Is he aware of the danger that if he appears to be going over the head of the Northern Ireland elected representatives the possibility is that there will be no Convention, because the members will not meet under a chairman appointed in that way? Therefore, will my right hon. Friend do his best to consult, directly or indirectly, the representatives of the people to try to find a suitable candidate?

Mr. Rees: There is room for the existing parties which were elected to the Assembly to discuss with Mr. Blackburn, the Clerk to the Assembly, their ideas on the early running of the Convention, which will be in my command, as it were. I understand exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, but the choice will be Her Majesty's Government's. I do not think that people in any part of the Convention will be disappointed.

Exclusion Orders

Mr. Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons have been the subject of exclusion orders made by him under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974; and how many have been refused entry into Northern Ireland under the powers of that Act or the Immigration Act 1971.

Mr. Rees: I have made no exclusion orders under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974 in respect of persons in, or attempting to enter, Northern Ireland. Immigration is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I understand that since the 1974 Act came into force three persons, all foreign nationals, have been refused leave to enter Northern Ireland ports of entry under the Immigration Act 1971.

Mr. Powell: Is the Secretary of State satisfied that he has the necessary means of control and identification to make a reality of exclusion orders when he finds it necessary to make them?

Mr. Rees: There is obviously a problem on the land boundary. Anybody who knows the land boundary will realise what I mean in terms of its length, the nature of the crossings, and so on. I have the necessary powers to exclude people who

are found inside the area. It would be idle to pretend that there are not difficulties, given the nature and the length of the border, but I intend to carry out this Act because I believe that it is necessary.

Mr. Watkinson: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to explain the circumstances in which Charles Devine was released from the Maze Prison on condition that he left Northern Ireland, but when he came to this country he was arrested and sent back, and is now a free man? Does he agree that this undermines the operation and authority of the law in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rees: The actions of the commissioner are not for me to go into; they are entirely a matter for him. He released Mr. Devine. There was no conditional release. The fact of the matter is that he was released and he eventually went back to Northern Ireland. I can deal only with someone who is concerned with terrorism within Northern Ireland. When the man came back there were no grounds on which I should or could have done anything.

Mr. McCusker: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is still room for improvement in co-operation between the RUC, the Army, and customs officers in border control duties, and that this view was frequently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) during a recent tour of the border? Will he have discussions with his colleagues in the Treasury with a view to improving the situation?

Mr. Rees: I think that the hon. Gentleman in that instance is referring principally to co-operation with customs officers. I am content with the co-operation between the Army and the RUC on most issues of which I know. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular incident in mind, I will look at it. In any event, I shall look at it because he has raised the matter.

Mr. Fitt: Reverting to the case of Mr. Charles Devine from Derry, who was recently excluded from Britain, is it not a fact that the commissioner who heard his case in Long Kesh agreed to release him on condition that he went to England and then to Germany?

Mr. Rees: I must again make the point to my hon. Friend that there are no such things as conditional releases. There may be a factor that a commissioner takes into account. I must not comment on this matter, because of the legal nature of it, but there are no such things as conditional releases. Factors could be taken into account, and it is up to the commissioner concerned. That is all that I can say on the matter.

Westminster Parliament

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration he has given to Northern Ireland's parliamentary representation at Westminster.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): None, Sir.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister say whether Northern Ireland representation at Westminster is to be made contingent upon whatever the Convention may propose or on simple terms of democracy?

Mr. Orme: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Convention will be free to discuss all aspects of the political situation in Northern Ireland, but the Government do not see this as a central issue.

Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that no matter what the representation of Northern Ireland is or is not at a fixed moment in this House, it is the extent to which those representatives introduce democracy, especially for the minority in Northern Ireland, which will ultimately determine the happiness of the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Orme: I agree with my hon. Friend's opening remarks. What the Government want to see is an extension of democracy in Northern Ireland itself. That is why we place so much emphasis on the Convention and that is why we want the Convention itself to be a success. We hope that, flowing from that Convention, a form of devolved government acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland will arise.

Mr. Evelyn King: The right hon. Gentleman said that the Convention will be free to discuss all aspects. Did he mean that? Does he mean that the Convention will be free to discuss the repre-

sentation of Northern Ireland in this House?

Mr. Orme: The ultimate decision will rest with this Parliament as to whether any changes are made in that regard, but it will be a Convention of elected Northern Ireland people, and they will be free to discuss all the facets of this problem.

Mr. Powell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that United Ulster Unionist Members not only wish to see but demand the same democratic rights for the people of Northern Ireland as are enjoyed by those in Great Britain?

Mr. Orme: I understand that. That point has been made very forcibly to the Government. We want to see the same democratic rights as appertain in Great Britain also appertaining in Northern Ireland.

Border Security

Mr. Gow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what proposals he has relating to the level of border security at the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Great importance is attached to the improvement of security along the border, and my right hon. Friend discussed the matter most recently with the Minister for Foreign Affiairs of the Irish Republic on 19th December. On instructions from the two Governments, officials are urgently considering various aspects of the problem.

Mr. Gow: The Opposition recognise the great difficulties about enforcing security at the frontier between the Republic and Ulster, but does the Minister not agree that a very great deal of the arms and munitions which are at present used to destroy life and property in Ulster come from the Republic? Will he undertake to give very urgent consideration to strengthing security at the border?

Mr. Concannon: The Governments of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic share a common aim of eradicating terrorism. There is valuable co-operation between the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda.

Mr. Mather: What progress has been made in closing secondary roads in the border area, and how effective is this proving to be?

Mr. Concannon: About one quarter of the unapproved crossings have now been blocked, but I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that there are considerable difficulties—topographical, economic, and so on—about closing some of the others.

Dublin

Mr. McCusker: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he next intends to visit Dublin.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have no immediate plans to visit Dublin.

Mr. McCusker: When the Secretary of State does visit Dublin, will he tell the authorities there that Her Majesty's Government view with continuing dismay the sanctuary offered to people like Roisin McLaughlin and Bartholomew Burns, who have been implicated in some of the most terrible crimes in Northern Ireland? Will the Secretary of State say whether it is still his intention, if possible, to bring those people to justice?

Mr. Rees: It is the Government's intention to bring to justice in the courts those who have been engaged in violence in Northern Ireland. It is important, in the present developing situation, to realise that, while we all accept that to move outside the normal law is something that none of us wants to do, a return to real law and order matters in Northern Ireland for both communities.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In the absence of extradition, which would be the proper expedient between friendly sovereign States, is it not disturbing that the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill appears to be running into difficulties in the Dail? Can urgent representations be made in Dublin, particularly as co-operation between the armed forces and the police is improving, in order to ensure that the efforts of the armed forces and police on both sides of the border are not brought to naught for want of proper judicial process?

Mr. Rees: Extradition is obviously the best way of doing these things, as Her Majesty's Government have said. We

shall be introducing our part of the legislation shortly. I have no comment to make on newspaper reports about any problems in the Dail, which is the Parliament of an independent country.

Emigrants

Mr. Beith: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will publish in the Official Report such figures as are available to indicate the approximate numbers of people who have left Northern Ireland to reside in other parts of the United Kingdom or abroad during the last 12 months.

Mr. Concannon: No precise figures are available but I shall publish details on the subject in the Official Report.

Mr. Beith: I welcome the Minister's intention to give details. Will he comment on the situation which newspapers have described, in which the campaign of violence seems to have ensured that, whatever the political future of Northern Ireland, it will have suffered by the loss of a number of skilled professional people and tradesmen? Does he not agree that this is also a reminder of the courage of those who carry on their normal working life in Northern Ireland during these difficulties?

Mr. Concannon: Without doubt, one is amazed at the courage of ordinary working-class people and others who attend their work in the conditions of Northern Ireland. What the hon. Gentleman has said about violence being a factor in emigration is important. There are a number of factors, and we are watching the trends very closely. They are difficult to sort out.

Mr. Kilfedder: Will the hon. Gentleman examine the consequences of the outward flow of persons on the economic future of the Province? The skills which people are taking with them are those skills which will be needed for the rebuilding of Northern Ireland. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is already evidence of a shortage of doctors and nurses in Northern Ireland and that some general practitioners who are retiring are not being replaced? Will he look urgently into these matters?

Mr. Concannon: The Department of Manpower is actively looking at this


matter. This is something which is exercising our minds to a great extent in Northern Ireland.

Following is the information:

1. The estimate of 12,500 for 1973 for net migration to all destinations is based on changes in the numbers of people on the electoral register as compared with the previous year and on figures for the natural increase in population. Another calculation, based on the transfers of national insurance records, suggests that the figure of net migration to Great Britain alone in 1973—excluding other places—was 13,500.

2. Net migration between 1966 and 1971 has been estimated at an annual average of around 6,600. There is evidence that the real figure towards the end of the period was much higher than this annual average and has increased since 1971.

Shot-guns

Mr. Farr: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will take steps to ease the ban on the holding of more than one shot-gun for sporting purposes in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): There is no ban on holding more than one shotgun, but the policy of the chief constable in exercising his discretion to authorise extra guns is, in present circumstances, naturally restrictive; shot-guns are an attraction to the terrorist.

Mr. Farr: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply. When he decides on future policy, will he bear in mind that few, if any, of the many horrible firearms offences which have occurred in Northern Ireland in recent years have been committed by lawful certificate holders?

Mr. Moyle: That is true. Sportsmen have been very responsible in the way in which they have looked after their guns. But, as I said, shot-guns are an attraction to the terrorist, and in the last 12-months' period for which we have figures—1972–73–281 shot-guns were stolen from private owners. I shall keep the situation under review, but I see no possibilities of relaxing matters in the near future.

Bomb Explosions (Strabane and Castlederg)

Mr. Dunlop: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will pay an official visit to the border towns of

Strabane and Castlederg following recent bomb explosions.

Mr. Concannon: My right hon. Friend intends to visit the Strabane area in the near future.

Mr. Dunlop: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that the Secretary of State will concede that a visit by him to these two towns, which are in close proximity to the border and have suffered appallingly in bomb attacks, would greatly encourage the responsible and loyal people there, who have suffered greatly, both personally and in respect of their property.

Mr. Concannon: The Secretary of State is fully aware of that—which is why he intends to visit the area again in the very near future.

Churchmen (IRA Talks)

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, after the return to Northern Ireland of the clergymen who had discussions with the IRA in the village of Feakle in Eire, what contact they made with his Department; and what request they made for the release of detainees or change in the rôle of, or the arming of, the police.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The churchmen who met members of the IRA at Feakle and subsequently called on me did not consult the Government before their talks with members of the Provisional IRA. After the Feakle meeting, the churchmen told me of the views of the Provisional IRA, which were on familiar lines.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the concern of the people of Northern Ireland at reports that they did consult the Government, and is he aware of the hope of those people that he will continue to act only on grounds of security in these matters?

Mr. Rees: If that is what the reports said they were wrong. While I am very keen on my responsibilities for security and my work with the RUC and the Army, I do not find it odd that churchmen are prepared to stand up for peace, since that is what we should expect. As I said in my statement, all that I said at the meeting is what I have said consistently—that if there is a sustained cessation of violence we can end detention


and I can remove the Army, in the large strength that it now is in Northern Ireland, back to barracks. That is the best way to proceed.

Mr. Clemitson: Will my right hon. Friend convey the thanks of what I believe to be many hon. Members to the churchmen who have taken the recent initiatives in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that they have been acting in the highest traditions of the Christian Church by reconciling people?

Mr. Rees: In view of my hon. Friend's background, I know that when he uses the word "reconciling" he uses it in the best sense. The Feakle churchmen, undoubtedly, will be seen historically to have been one factor in the events of recent weeks, but what has mattered far more than them and me and all the other people who play a part on the political stage is the strong feeling in both parts of the community that they want a genuine peace, and not something that teeters on from day to day.

Murderers (Release)

Mr. Bradford: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the approach by Northern Ireland clergymen to his Department to approach the European Commission on Human Rights to appoint a representative to sit on a special commission to recommend parole or release for convicted murderers.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend has no knowledge of this proposal.

Mr. Bradford: Does the Minister of State accept that it would cause great misgivings and mistrust in Northern Ireland to involve an institution which has been used by the Republican Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to castigate, discredit and demoralise members of Her Majesty's Forces when those forces are doing a great job in Northern Ireland and deserve the full support of the House?

Mr. Orme: The hon. Member is not facing the reality of the situation. I have given him a clear answer that the Government have no idea of any such proposals and therefore could not act upon them.

Mr. Fitt: May I ask a supplementary question to what was said by my hon. Friend in a reply to an earlier Question?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am certain that it is not beyond the hon. Member's ingenuity to make his point in the form of a supplementary question to this Question.

Mr. Fitt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The two Questions are tied. In Northern Ireland—and the question directly relates to events in Northern Ireland—a very small group of people are casting aspersions on the good will of the clergymen who have been acting in the context of peace. The Question relates directly to whether or not they have been carrying messages to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in relation to the European Commission on Human Rights. It is accepted that this is not so. Is my hon. Friend aware that when the hon. Member for Belfast, West appeared at Strasbourg in relation to a very important case proceeding there the evidence had not been published and could not have been known by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford)?

Mr. Orme: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want me to intervene in a personal dispute between himself and the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). The Government are at present looking for a constructive peace, based on the Secretary of State's statement on Tuesday, and we believe that the basis for such a peace is there.

Mr. Mather: Will the Minister of State say what success he is having with the Dublin Government in persuading them to withdraw their case against British troops in Northern Ireland, which is before the European Commission on Human Rights?

Mr. Orme: Overall we are getting more co-operation from the Dublin Government on matters like the border and other sensitive areas. We want to do nothing which would disrupt that now.

UDR and Royal Ulster Constabulary

Mr. Carson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what are the latest recruitment figures for the Ulster Defence Regiment and the reserve police; and what resignations there have been from the UDR and RUCR over the past three months.

Mr. Moyle: During the three months to 31st December 1974, 1,048 men and 229 women were recruited to the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. Over the same period, 78 men and nine women resigned. Recruiting to the Ulster Defence Regiment is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but I understand that during the last quarter of 1974 462 men and 84 women were recruited into the regiment, and 275 men and 39 women resigned.

Mr. Carson: Will the Minister of State give an assurance that he will do all in his power to speed up the process of vetting applicants for both the reserve police and the UDR? Will he give an assurance that the reserve police will have the proper weapons to carry out their duty?

Mr. Moyle: I give no assurance on behalf of the UDR, which is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As for the RUCR, the vetting process will take place as rapidly as possible. There are outstanding 1,050 applications from men and 240 from women, which are still being processed. The time lag is to some extent due to the Christmas holidays. When these people are enrolled they will be reserve policemen and policewomen.

Mr. Bradford: Since the UDR is an integral part of the British Army, will the Minister give an assurance that even if the Army is drastically reduced in Northern Ireland the UDR will have a significant and lasting rôle for the security of the Province?

Mr. Moyle: The UDR will have appropriate duties in the event of any situation such as the hon. Member has described. Undertakings in respect of the UDR are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Situation

Mr. Mather: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Orme: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend's statement in the House on 14th January.—[Vol. 884, c. 201–4.]

Mr. Mather: What means will the Government use to ensure that the ceasefire is not used simply as a welcome respite by the IRA—a tactical move in order to reorganise, re-equip and redeploy, so that it may launch fresh attacks against people of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Orme: I refer the hon. Member to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Tuesday, when he referred to the fact that the Army was aware of the situation, that it was manning the border and was looking for explosives if they were being moved about, but at the same time that its rôle had been reduced and that this had been welcomed by both communities in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Goodhart: If, as we must all hope, the cease-fire continues to hold and the rôle of the Army in Northern Ireland can be reduced, is it not plain that the rôle of the RUC will have to be substantially increased? Does the Minister think that the morale of the RUC will be improved if the Government go ahead with their disgraceful attempt to cut the compensation awarded to three widows of RUC constables shot by terrorists?

Mr. Orme: I cannot refer to a case that is sub judice. We accept that if we can move towards a permanent cease-fire policing in Northern Ireland will become a major factor. It is the sort of problem that the Government will have to grapple with. I think that the Leader of the Opposition also found, on his recent visit to Northern Ireland, that the morale of the RUC is extremely high. The RUC wants to move into this new situation in which it can develop policing throughout the whole of the Province. I believe that once we get to that position, however difficult it is, we can grasp the nettle.

Mr. Fitt: Has my right hon. Friend had any communication today on the question whether there is to be an extention of the cease-fire or the true period?

Mr. Orme: We have no information to date.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on his brave attempts to hold on to the fragile peace, but is he not aware that many people in Northern Ireland are disturbed at the suggestions which have appeared in the Press that a senior civil servant has been negotiating with the IRA? Will the right hon. Gentleman deny it, if it is not true? Does he realise that the IRA cannot be trusted to carry out its side of any negotiated settlement?

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend explained this point very fully in his statement on Tuesday. We are looking for an extension of the cease-fire into a permanent situation in which the matters we have just been discussing, such as policing and a new approach in Northern Ireland, can be effective. But in that regard my right hon. Friend does not go beyond his statement on Tuesday.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does my right hon. Friend agree that at a time when millions of people everywhere are hoping that this fragile peace may be made permanent, any hon. Member who, by his sniping, encourages anybody in Ulster who wants to return to the position as it was in the middle of December is unworthy of membership of the House?

Mr. Orme: Not only in the House but, more important still, in both communities, the response to the cease-fire since its beginning has been tremendous. We believe that people in Northern Ireland want the cease-fire to continue and develop into a permanent peace. People in this country and Northern Ireland will not lightly judge anyone who brings it to an end.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the RUC being allowed to adopt a higher profile as the Army has taken a lower profile during the cease-fire? Are the establishment totals for the RUC and RUC Reserve credible in view of the likely increase in policing that the right hon. Gentleman has already outlined?

Mr. Orme: The RUC wants to develop normal policing, comparable with what is done in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is what the Government are assisting it in.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of the increasing co-operation from south of

the border, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we may be approaching the time when we can have joint or co-ordinated patrolling by the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic, without prejudice to national sovereignty on either side, of course?

Mr. Orme: There is a great deal going on. Co-operation between the RUC and the Garda is at a higher level than at any time. I should not like to take this argument any further now.

Residential Development (Rural Areas)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he proposes to publish his Green Paper on Residential Development in Rural Areas.

Mr. Concannon: The Consultation Paper on Residential Development in Rural Areas was published last July and consultations are continuing. It is expected that the proposed Green Paper on Regional Physical Development Strategy will be published shortly.

Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that it might therefore be wise to postpone approval of applications for major developments which would breach the stop line for the city of Belfast, particularly in the southern side of the city, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has confirmed my impression that building sites are available within the city boundary?

Mr. Concannon: That is not my reading of the situation, but I have promised the Lisburn Council that I shall not go further ahead with any of the proposals until the publication of the Green Paper.

Mr. McCusker: Will the Minister bear in mind that, traditionally, there has always been a high density of population in rural areas in Northern Ireland, and that while we fully appreciate the environmental arguments we are more concerned with having the people living in the country than having vast areas depopulated?

Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman is talking about developments in the rural areas, and not the Green Paper on strategy. I am anxious to set down a firm policy. A Consultation Paper was


issued in July, and I have had quite a number of consultations about the matter. I have arranged one for next Friday with the representatives of the 26 district councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Fishing Industry

Mr. Hicks: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce measures to alleviate the present financial difficulties of inshore fishermen; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the application of the British fishing industry for a subsidy.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has yet made a decision regarding financial aid to the trawling industry; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): The Government are actively considering the question of aid for the fishing industry. We hope to be able to make a statement shortly.

Mr. Hicks: In view of the financial difficulties now faced by the inshore fishermen, largely as a result of the increase in their fuel costs, and bearing in mind their contribution to our domestic food supplies and the local economies to rural areas, does not the Minister agree that some form of operating payment should be reintroduced at the earliest possible opportunity? When are the inshore fishermen of Looe and Polperro, in my constituency, likely to know?

Mr. Bishop: We are very much aware of the problems to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and especially those in his own area. At this stage account is being taken of these further cost increases. I am not able to say exactly when a decision will be announced.

Mr. James Johnson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the fishing industry has had at least three or four bonanza years? However, there seems little doubt that conditions have worsened. Does my

hon. Friend accept that the BTF, for example, is correct in saying that over 300 vessels will lose, per vessel, £10,000 a year, and that the total loss will be between £12 million and £13 million? The fishing industry is a difficult industry, with a feudal structure. There is suspicion between owners and deckhands. If public money is to be poured in, will my hon. Friend ensure that there is the utmost public accountability? Whatever may be the view of the chartered accountants, the public will provide the finance that will lie behind the subsidies.

Mr. Bishop: I take note of my hon. Friend's comments and of his interest in the industry—particularly that part of it in his own constituency. The figures and factors to which my hon. Friend referred, and other factors affecting the industry in the past few months, are now being considered urgently.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that one of the greatest problems facing inshore fishermen is the imposition of quotas on the amount that they can catch, which has a serious effect on profitability? Does he agree that the time is coming for this country, like Norway, to announce an increase in our limits, in the interests of our fishermen?

Mr. Bishop: I appreciate the comment that has been made by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he would not wish us to take unilateral action. These are matters for negotiation. There are implications beyond the area to which he has referred.

Mr. Beith: Will the Minister take into account the fact that fishermen, who in their anxiety are seeking some temporary help, would like to get a fair return from the market and are anxious about the low rate of quayside prices compared with prices in the shops? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider his decision not to hold any form of inquiry into the industry?

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in recent years there has been a great increase in investment in the inshore fishing industry. The factors that the hon. Gentleman has drawn to the attention of my Department will be taken into account in the decision about any operating subsidy which may or may not be given.

Agriculture Industry (Financial Assistance)

Mr. David Steel: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will now review the assistance available to agricultural interests, with a view to offsetting the financial impact of the Budget in rural areas.

Mr. Bishop: We are examining the economic condition and prospects of the industry in the course of the Annual Review of Agriculture, which has now started, and we shall be looking closely at the level of support provided to the industry.

Mr. Steel: Is the Minister's Department considering the possibility of extending the regional employment premium to agriculture? Such an extension would help greatly in the development areas.

Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that that is not a matter for my Department.

Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Minister say when we can expect to have an announcement on the continuation of the oil subsidy for the glasshouse industry?

Mr. Bishop: At this stage I do not have anything to add to what I said in an Adjournment debate on 20th December. The matter is under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Inflation and Employment

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the prospects for containing inflation and maintaining employment in 1975.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): The most important single factor in determining the rate of inflation in 1975 is likely to be pay settlements. Maintaining employment will depend both on our international competitiveness and on avoiding a recession in world trade.

Mr. Taylor: Is an interim Budget contemplated at this stage? On the crucial importance of pay settlements to which the Minister has referred, will he say whether there is any truth in the sugges-

tion that the Government are delaying effective controls on wages until the miners' dispute is settled?

Mr. Sheldon: I have nothing further to say on the date of the Budget. The date will be announced in due course by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As pay settlements are at present the main contribution to the level of inflation, it is hoped that they will all be settled within the social contract. Any assistance that can be given in that respect will be welcomed in the light of our expectation regarding future inflation.

Mr. Rost: What is the current rate of inflation?

Mr. Sheldon: The current rate of inflation is 18·3 per cent. year on year since November 1973.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will the Minister give an assurance that farmers will be adequately recouped for the cost of production at this year's price review?

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman will know that that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Lorry Accident (Member's Correspondence)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of his letter to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, dated 23rd December 1974, concerning the circumstances in which a quantity of tins of food were distributed among members of the Gloucestershire, Somerset and Avon police forces, he will arrange for the hon. Member for Newham, North-West to see a copy of the report of the investigation into these matters.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is some assistance to me if I can hear the answer. Perhaps the Minister will repeat it.

Dr. Summerskill: I said, "No, Sir".

Mr. Lewis: Will my hon. Friend explain to me why there has been


a delay of almost six months following the admitted declaration that tons of food was ferried by police officers in their police cars, using their car radios to tell their friends and neighbours of the situation and taking tins of food home? It was stealing by finding. Is it now suggested that there were too many police officers involved to enable action to be taken or that the police were willing to take the goods back? Is the Minister prepared to consent to the police taking no action on this matter? Does my hon. Friend think that this is the sort of thing that should be allowed to go on? Will she ask the police authorities to take some action? When the dockers were involved action was taken immediately.

Dr. Summerskill: Disciplinary proceedings have been instituted against about 40 officers of the Gloucestershire, Somerset and Avon forces on charges of discreditable conduct or neglect of duty. My noble Friend the Minister of State is writing to my hon. Friend to explain the present position. Meanwhile, as disciplinary proceedings are pending and an appeal against any consequent finding of guilt or imposition of punishment will lie with the Home Secretary, it would not be appropriate for Ministers to make any comment at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of the Environment, the Scottish Office, and Industry, in relation to the implementation of the Government's policies for the improvement of, and encouragement of the use of, public transport.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware—I am sure that he is—of the increasing public anxiety to protect the environment and, more important, to intensify the urge to save energy? Does he appreciate that in both cases it is imperative that the Government pursue much more vigorous policies to divert traffic, both freight and passenger, from the private to the public system of transport? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Scotland, where there is North Sea oil, it is important to invest more in the railway

system so as to ensure that the heavy traffic gets on to the rails rather than the roads? Further, does he agree that we should increase the provision of passenger public transport rather than use energy wastefully in the private car?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It is the Government's policy to make the move from road to rail as far as possible in respect of passengers and freight. My hon. Friend will know that as a result of the legislation passed in the previous Session my right hon. Friend has directed the Railways Board to operate a full service as against the cuts that were in prospect. The claim for compensation for operating the passenger system in 1975 will amount to £341 million. For buses, the Government are contributing about £60 million a year in support, mainly through the new bus grant and rebate of fuel duty.

Mr. Robert Cooke: Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to wake up the Post Office, ask it to get on with its postal bus experiment and perhaps widen its scope? The Post Office can do a fine job for public transport in rural areas.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. There has been a useful experiment over the past year or two, particularly in certain rural areas such as Cumberland. I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke).

Mr. Grimond: May I press the Prime Minister again to look into the effect of the increased taxation of petrol and oil upon transport of all sorts in rural areas? Following upon the question raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Cooke), will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to encourage the Post Office to use joint services along with the transport services? It is already doing so in rural areas, and this can be greatly extended.

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as I agreed with the hon. Member for Bristol, West, that this matter should be considered not merely in the Post Office sense. The taxation of petrol must operate with some degree of harshness in the more scattered areas where mileage is essential and not just a luxury. It is right


to conserve energy, and the House accepted the necessity of our taxation proposals. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are considering different means of applying our proposals so as to see whether we can in some way temper the harsh effects to which he has drawn attention.

Mr. Lipton: Is it not difficult to talk about encouraging the use of public transport when we have inherited from the previous administration a car park in New Palace Yard costing £1 million and bringing more and more traffic into the centre of London?

The Prime Minister: I do not know whether it brings more traffic in. All hon. Members are anxious to come to the House on all possible occasions. Whether they park there or next door, the traffic is not increased. Most hon. Members have formed their views on the cost-benefit analysis, ex post facto, of that particular proposal, which was put through on a Friday afternoon when no one was looking.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr. Hurd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an outside adviser to the Government on the working of the social contract.

Mr. George Gardiner: asked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint an adviser to the Government on the social contract, with similar status to the recently appointed adviser on industry.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 14th January to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Rost).—[Vol. 884, c. 77.]

Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the fact that in recent weeks four of his colleagues—the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, the Minister of State in another place, the Chancellor, and the Paymaster-General—have made vague speeches hinting that the social contract is not now enough, and putting forward contradictory ideas as to how it might be changed? Will the Prime Minister stop this system of government by nods and winks and, as the Prime Minister,

tell the country plainly what new measures the national interest now requires?

The Prime Minister: I have read all of those speeches and I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says for one moment. What we have emphasised in our speeches—the hon. Gentleman might also mention my own, and make it five—is the need for the maximum possible compliance with the guidelines of the social contract. As the hon. Member will be aware, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I discussed this with the CBI last Friday. We are having meetings with the TUC. As a result of our meeting, and, I think, of what was said and done at the CBI conference yesterday, we now understand that what we wanted to see will happen and that the CBI and the TUC will talk directly on these matters.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no need to appoint a special adviser to deal with this? Is he aware that he can get the best obtainable advice from this side of the House on this issue at all times? Does he not agree that the speech made by the Chancellor last Friday, which received widespread public circulation, was a bit unfortunate, probably because of its obscurity, because it seemed to suggest that a reduction in people's living standards was called for? Is it not necessary for my right hon. Friend and his colleagues to make absolutely sure that everything that is put out is as plain as a pikestaff?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly the case that my right hon. Friend and I do not lack advice on these matters. I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for his help, including his frank comment on the speech I made in my constituency last Friday—a speech which, I think, he will agree, when he has read it, requires him to make some revision of that comment. I hope that in future his comments on my speeches will be as plain as a pikestaff.

Mr. Gardiner: Following his own speech, does the Prime Minister accept that steps must soon be taken to ensure that the application of the social contract to wage settlements is made more strict?—or is he deferring this until further settlements have been reached with the miners and electrical power workers?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Member to this extent—this has been made plain by the Government, the TUC and in the speech of my right hon. Friend—that there have been anxieties about certain settlements, for example, where there has been a settlement twice within one year, which is against the guidelines of the TUC. The hon. Gentleman will have seen what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has said and what was said by the Chancellor in his New Year message, namely, that on the calculations available to us, measuring on the basis of numbers affected, 75 per cent. of the settlements have been within the guidelines.

Mr. Wellbeloved: Since nods and winks can often make things as plain as a pikestaff, will my right hon. Friend seize this opportunity of confirming his full confidence in the Home Secretary's discharge of the difficult and individious duties he has in respect of his exercise of the Royal Prerogative of Mercy?

The Prime Minister: I answered this question two days ago and I do not need to repeat what I said then. The Questions that I am answering today relate to the social contract, which is a matter between the Government and industry. As I made clear the other day, the matter for which my right hon. Friend bears this difficult responsibility is not one for the Government or this House. It is an individual matter.

Mr. Heath: Dealing first with the point about the Home Secretary, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he and the Cabinet will fully support the right hon. Gentleman in whatever decision he takes? Secondly, the Prime Minister has just said, perhaps unthinkingly, that the social contract is a contract between Government and industry. It is a contract between the Labour Party and the trade unions; let there be no misunderstanding about that. Industry as a whole was never consulted about the social contract and the employers have never been party to it. Will the Prime Minister say whether it is intended to tighten up the social contract?

The Prime Minister: It is for the Home Secretary to carry this responsibility. I have the fullest confidence in his judgment.

He has been appointed Home Secretary and he has to carry the responsibility. It would be wrong for me to interfere—

Mr. Faulds: Just back him, that is all.

The Prime Minister: —just as it would have been wrong for the right hon. Gentleman when he was Prime Minister, to interfere in any similar case. I made it perfectly clear when the TUC deputation came to see me, without waiting for the demonstration last Tuesday.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the social contract is not between the Government and industry. He is a little out of date here. Originally there was a document signed by the Labour Party and the TUC. More recently it has been the Government and the TUC. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was in this country at the time, but he will be aware that last Friday my right hon. Friend and I had discussions with the CBI, the purpose of which was to try to ensure that this was a tripartite matter. I have been available to talk to the CBI and have done so whenever it wanted over the past 10 months. This issue was taken a little further last week.
As for tightening the social contract, I believe that, given compliance with it, there is no need to make changes in the contract or the guidelines. What we want to see in difficult circumstances is the maximum possible compliance with a social contract. Many of the cases quoted by the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters on the social contract are cases which his own Government were committed to regard as exceptions and variations. I mean, for example, the miners, the nurses—I think the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to do something there; I am not sure—and the teachers—I would guess he was ready to do the same for them. Very many of these cases which have gone beyond the social contract have been cases on which there should be no dispute between the parties or successive Governments.
In addition—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman put three questions to me and he is getting them answered. In addition, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that a high proportion of the increase in wage rates and earnings over the last few months has been due to


threshold payments, which he introduced and which I supported.

Mr. Heath: There remains the question: will the Prime Minister and the Government support the Home Secretary in his decision? This is not a question of interference. I fully accept, as I did when I was Prime Minister, that there must be no interference. Will the right hon. Gentleman say clearly that he will support the Home Secretary's decision?
Turning to the social contract, is the Prime Minister saying that the CBI supports the nationalisation content of the social contract? That is completely untrue.

The Prime Minister: I have already made it clear that I support the Home Secretary in the discharge of his responsibilities. I have made that clear several times. The right hon. Gentleman is abusing Question Time when there are Questions on the Order Paper of great importance to the whole House, relating to the social contract. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat his second question, which was presumably more related to this subject?

Mr. Heath: My second question is: is the Prime Minister saying that the CBI—with which he has had talks—agrees with that element of the social contract which commits the Government, as the Prime Minister now says, and the unions to the nationalisation of major industries in this country?

The Prime Minister: No, of course it does not. Because the CBI does not agree with every aspect, am I supposed not to talk to the CBI? [Interruption.] After the performance of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues yesterday on public ownership, the biggest threat to democracy in this country is the lack of a coherent Opposition.
The CBI representatives came to see my right hon. Friend and myself last Friday and said that while there were, of course, things set out in the social contract on which they took a different view, they wanted to discuss with us what they thought was the very wide area of common ground within what is covered by the social contract. That did not mean that they would sign on the dotted line on everything in it. The right hon.

Gentleman should recognise that it is possible to deal with people when there is not always common agreement. That is where he went wrong with the miners last winter.

Mr. Evelyn King: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Is it not a fact that on two days in succession we have reached Question No. 2 of the Prime Minister's Questions? Wherever the blame may rest—I am not seeking to place it—is this not an intrusion into the rights of private Members which we have a right to resist and to resent?

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you aware that some Government supporters are a little disturbed about the use of Question Time, particularly the Prime Minister's Question Time, and about being subjected to interminable interruptions from the Leader of the Opposition? I suggest, not to you, Sir, but to Opposition Members, that they have the remedy in their own hands to stop it.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Wherever blame may lie, is it not patently a fact that today the maximum time has been spent on the minimum of Parliamentary Questions with the minimum of effective result? May I respectfully ask you to consider the matter, with a view to addressing exhortations to improve these matters to whatever quarters you may think appropriate, receptive and useful?

Mr. John Mendelson: As the question of the two trade unionists who are in prison was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and taken up by the Leader of the Opposition, may I ask the Prime Minister whether—

Mr. Speaker: Order. At the moment I am dealing with a point of order relating to the use of Question Time. I am still on the point of order.

Mr. Mendelson: We did not finish Question Time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member is addressing himself to that point of order—and it is not patently clear to me that he is—he may proceed.

Mr. Mendelson: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, if I was under a misapprehension. I thought that, perhaps, you were going to allow one or two more supplementary questions and that we were interrupted by the point of order.

Mr. Speaker: If I had been going to do that there is no one I would more readily have called than the hon. Member.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your difficulties, Mr. Speaker, and your troubles in the House. I am absolutely on your side. As a back bencher belonging to a party that has 30 per cent. of the Scottish vote, I find it deplorable that we should have reached only the second of the Prime Minister's Questions and that so many excellent Questions of importance to hon. Members have been lost. Will you, Mr. Speaker, recommend to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition that they should be a little more indulgent towards back benchers, and that they should talk less and let us talk more?

Mr. Ashton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for you to advise the Leader of the Opposition to allocate a Supply Day to the question of the Shrewsbury pickets and discuss the matter in Opposition time instead of abusing back benchers' time?

Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not painfully obvious that, apart from the abuse of Question Time, 15 minutes twice a week is far too short a time in which to question the Prime Minister?

Mr. Speaker: I have listened carefully to the points of order, and, no doubt, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have also listened to them carefully. I shall say no more at the moment.

The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been said that we reached only the second Question. Apart from the fact that Question Q2 and Question Q6 here bracketed and taken together, several supplementary questions on Question Q2 and Question Q6 related to Home Office affairs, which are not contained within the social contract. If I have to answer seven supplementary questions from the

Leader of the Opposition, it is difficult for me to answer supplementary questions from back benchers.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that whether a question is in order is a matter for you and not for the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister should address himself to not playing for time during his Question Time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that further discussion is profitable. Mr. Prior.

NEWSPAPERS (DISPUTE)

Mr. Prior: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a statement about the action his Department is taking to resolve the industrial dispute which is affecting the production of national newspapers.

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): The National Graphical Association has instructed its members employed by national newspapers in membership of the Newspaper Publishers' Association to resume industrial action in support of a claim for the restoration of a pay differential. The issue arose from the negotiation of new annual agreements to be implemented from last October. Agreements have been reached between the Newspaper Publishers' Association and the other five unions representing manual workers, but the offer of a similar agreement has been rejected by the National Graphical Association because it would not maintain an existing differential of 12½ per cent.
Industrial action, which was directed at limiting the production of newspapers to only one edition, began in mid-December but was suspended from 18th December on the intervention of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Since that time, the service has chaired a series of meetings of the parties in an endeavour to assist them to reach a settlement. On 13th January it became evident that for the present agreement was not possible. At that meeting the Newspaper Publishers' Association again offered to enter negotiations with all six unions, including the National Graphical Association, on


any issues they might want to raise—including questions on differentials—with the objective of implementing any agreements reached at the end of the current agreements in October 1975. This was not acceptable to the National Graphical Association, which sought a firm commitment that the differential would in fact be restored.
Industrial action resumed on 14th January. This had led to disruptions in production and the Newspaper Publishers' Association has informed the National Graphical Association that all its members employed by newspapers in membership of the association will be regarded as having terminated their personal contracts of employment from 9 a.m. on 17th January unless, before that time, the National Graphical Association has withdrawn its instructions for industrial action and given an undertaking that uninterrupted production will be restored.
A very serious threat therefore exists to the continued publication of most national newspapers. Moreover, the very viability of some newspapers might well be put at risk by the action being taken or the action threatened. Whatever the strength of feeling of members of the National Graphical Association, or, indeed, whatever the merits of the case, I very much hope that they will now reconsider their position and lift the threat to the Press.

Mr. Prior: Is the Secretary of State aware that we join him in his statement urging the NGA to resume work straight away? Secondly, is he also aware that we share to the full his views about the economic position of certain newspapers? I think it is true to say that at the moment there is not a single national daily newspaper that is making a profit. If this dispute is allowed to continue or worsen, it could mean that certain newspapers will go out of business altogether. Therefore, we face a very serious situation indeed.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Secretary of State, and perhaps also to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I believe that the present situation now requires a meeting at the highest level of all six unions to the dispute. I hope that if such a meeting can be called, it will be held quickly; and the NGA would have the understanding that, as the publishers have promised, the dif-

ferential could be at the top of the agenda for the next round of negotiations. In the meantime, I should not like to press the right hon. Gentleman further. I hope that the meeting will be called and that the House will be kept fully in touch with what has now become a desperate situation for the survival of our national newspapers.

Mr. Foot: Because of the extreme seriousness of the situation, I give the undertaking that we shall keep the House informed of any developments that may occur and of any possibilities of a settlement. I entirely accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about the nature of the crisis that might face Fleet Street and the newspaper industry generally if we were not able to secure a sensible settlement. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, myself and the Government are prepared to consider any suggestion that we think might be successful, but all the various possibilities have been most carefully explored in all the discussions which have taken place in the Conciliation and Arbitration Service, and indeed those discussions have gone on for hours on end over the whole of this period.
I am not certain that the proposal advanced by the right hon. Gentleman is the way to secure any change in the position but, as I have said, any suggestion is carefully considered. We do not at the moment think that that is the right way for us to proceed, but that does not mean that we bar any suggestion. The Chairman of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service is open to any fresh possibility of reopening discussions before tomorrow's deadline and I very much hope that all the parties concerned will take that into account.

Mr. Madel: Has the NGA indicated its willingness to take part in a further series of meetings under the chairmanship of the Conciliation and Arbitration Service? Since the Secretary of State referred to meetings held from 18th December onwards, does he have any idea about the NGA's current attitude to further meetings?

Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the difficulties. There was a proposal for fresh discussions to take place—discussions in which the


differential would be involved—but the NGA, after all the discussions which had taken place—and I emphasise that point so as not to misrepresent the situation—was still saying that there must be a commitment to a restoration of the differential before it would proceed with discussions. That is part of the difficulty which has led to the present situation and one reason why I do not believe that the course put forward by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is necessarily the best way to proceed.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Secretary of State accept that there is wide support in Fleet Street for the excellent efforts which are being made by the Conciliation and Arbitration Service to achieve a sensible settlement of the dispute? Will he also accept that a contribution to a resumption of sensible and meaningful negotiations would be made if the Newspaper Publishers' Association could be persuaded to withdraw what many workers in the industry see as a threat aimed at locking them out of their jobs?

Mr. Foot: I have had a number of informal discussions over several weeks with different parties to the dispute. It is right that I should not reveal what those discussions involved, but I should say that they were very full discussions under the Conciliation and Arbitration Service. In those discussions the highest possible tribute has been paid from all quarters, both employers and unions, to that service, and in particular to Mr. Jim Mortimer, who has chaired most of the meetings and played a special part in seeking a solution. When a solution is reached, as I hope eventually will happen, I am sure that much credit will be due to him.
My hon. Friend referred to the NPA statement, and I cannot see that what it proposes will ease the situation. That should also be taken into account. But we are still open to examine any way in which to overcome the problem. One factor to be taken into consideration is likely to be the response to the action of the NPA.

Mr. Grimond: As usual, I wish to declare an interest. I welcome the Secretary of State's statement and support it in every way. I also confirm that behind

the current dispute there is a fear about redundancy which may follow technical changes in the industry, and it is a fear with which there must be some sympathy. Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that Fleet Street is well aware that redundancies will have to be fully discussed with the unions, and that this is a matter about which the proprietors feel deep concern?

Mr. Foot: I do not say that that is a factor which figures directly in this dispute, but it is part of the background and part of the cause of the fears of the NGA. As I said in my statement, I am not passing judgment on the merits or demerits of the case. I believe that the NGA could perform a great service, not only to its own members but to everybody else in Fleet Street, if it called off this action and enabled us to decide what was the next best step to take. I still hope that it may be able to consider that. I still also hope that the NPA will consider how best it can contribute to achieving that result.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 20TH JANUARY—Second Reading of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
EEC Documents R/1746/73 and R/2268/74 on Value Added Tax.
TUESDAY 21ST JANUARY AND WEDNESDAY 22ND JANUARY—Further progress in Committee on the Finance Bill.
THURSDAY 23RD JANUARY—Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
FRIDAY 24TH JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 27TH JANUARY—Supply [8th allotted day]: Subject to be announced.

Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House consider the possibility of holding two debates? First, although we have


had a debate on Europe, a wider debate on foreign affairs has not been held for many months. There is a genuine feeling in the House, particularly in view of the important decisions made at European conferences, that this would be an appropriate time to hold such a debate. I recognise that the Foreign Secretary spoke about this matter during his speech in the debate on the Address and made an appeal to the party faithful to support him in the future. Having heard a few words about foreign affairs, it would now be useful to have a debate on foreign affairs as such.
Secondly, since the Opposition are so strongly opposed to the proposal made by the Secretary of State for Industry yesterday for the nationalisation of the aircraft industry, will the Leader of the House provide time for a debate on that matter and on the document published, before we actually get to the legislation? A Government document is involved and the Government should provide time for the debate.

Mr. Short: On the first point, the right hon. Gentleman is being rather unkind to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The Opposition did not choose to debate foreign affairs on the Queen's Speech, and my right hon. Friend asked to speak on foreign affairs.
Secondly, I cannot promise a debate on the aircraft industry in the near future. The Opposition have a Supply Day on Monday week. Perhaps they could use that for the debate.

Mr. John Mendelson: Many people in the country are deeply concerned about what they regard as very harsh sentences being served by two trade unionists who are in gaol. These was a great deal of public evidence last Tuesday that that was so. In view of that fact, is it not desirable that the House should have an opportunity of debating the issue so that both sides of the case can be fully deployed, not merely by shouting and interruptions? At the same time the equally time-honoured tradition of the Home Secretary, which was exercised some years ago by Sir Samuel Hoare, of recommending a pardon in such cases, should be tested against the public opinion expressed in this House—[Interruption.] In spite of the girlish

laughter of the enemies of trade unionism, I think that such a debate is most essential.

Mr. Short: I repeat what was said by the Prime Minister a few moments ago. This is a matter of the exercise of the Prerogative. The Home Secretary is the only person who advises the Queen on that. I am afraid that I cannot promise any time for a debate. During the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill any matter involving Government expenditure can be debated.

Mr. Farr: Will the Leader of the House say whether he thinks there is any chance of a fairly early debate on the conclusions and recommendations of the World Food Conference, which took place in Rome last November? Many important decisions were taken at that conference, to which the British Government contributed. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find time in the House for a discussion of the matter.

Mr. Short: I have a great deal of sympathy with that request. I have not been able to find any time for it, but I shall bear it in mind. It would be a very suitable subject for a Supply Day, or half a Supply Day.

Mr. Urwin: In view of the fact that labour-only sub-contracting is one of the root causes of unrest in the construction industry, which is by no means dissociated from the problem to which my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) referred, will the Leader of the House endeavour to ensure that as early as possible a Bill is brought before the House for the purpose of eliminating the lump in the construction industry?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend will have something to say about that in the very near future.

Mr. Hugh Fraser: In view of the deterioration in world trade and the clear cases now of dumping in this country of goods from Eastern Europe, will the right hon. Gentleman either arrange for a statement to be made on this matter by one of his right hon. Friends, or arrange to hold a short debate on the whole general issue of the anti-dumping machinery available to the Government?

Mr. Short: I know of the concern—as expressed by many hon. Members—about this matter, which exists in the textile and other industries. I shall discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.

Mr. Molloy: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider having an early debate in the House of Commons so that we may discuss the methods of propaganda which are bound to be used in the great forthcoming debate about whether Great Britain should remain in the Common Market? Will he recall that just before the House went into recess he agreed with me that there was a problem involving international civil servants—and, I add, some commissioners—in Brussels who were not adhering to the high standards of senior civil servants in this country but were interfering with the debate and were able to make contributions to the media on serious matters to be the subject of examination by this House.

Mr. Short: The Government will have something to say before very long about how we intend to consult the British people.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Will the Leader of the House tell us when we shall have an opportunity of debating devolution to Scotland and Wales?

Mr. Short: Yes, Sir. I hope to be able to say something about that, probably in my next business statement.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Will the Leader of the House say whether he has been awake during the night and, if so, whether he heard the half-hourly announcements made on London Broadcasting last night that the Government would meet in conjunction with the Opposition to establish a Select Committee to go into matters pertaining to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stonehouse)? If there have been any such discussions, will my right hon. Friend point out to whoever gave that report to the London Broadcasting Company that the Government do not establish Select Committees? That is done by the House of Commons. Will he ensure that the House of Commons is given that information, rather than in official Government handouts? The House of Commons likes to be con-

sulted and to know what is going on. Will he also investigate from where the LBC obtained this official handout?

Mr. Short: I listened to those reports and read the Press accounts about this matter with great interest. I know that hon. Members are interested in this matter. I have sent a fairly large number of communications to the right hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Stone-house) over the past few days. I sent him a further telegram yesterday. I think that we had better await the result of that. If necessary, I shall say something to the House about this on Monday.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does the Leader of the House regard it as satisfactory that so many important Common Market orders are being discussed in the middle of the night? I appreciate his difficulties, but cannot we do something better than that?

Mr. Short: It is not entirely satisfactory, but a great many aspects of our membership are not entirely satisfactory. This is one of the consequences. We are feeling our way in this matter. I think I am right in saying that we have gone much further than any other national parliament in the Community to keep Parliament informed about what is going on in Brussels. This matter is now before the Select Committee on Procedure. I think that we had better await its report.

Mr. Christopher Price: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on the prospective increases in Post Office charges, particularly the overseas charges that threaten to put out of existence the large number of periodicals published in this country, which are unique and which have fixed their subscriptions for posting abroad for the whole year?

Mr. Short: I cannot promise a debate next week. However, I imagine that this would be an appropriate subject to discuss on the Consolidated Fund Bill. The subject is wide enough to cover the whole of Government expenditure.

Mr. Tom King: In view of the gross abuse of parliamentary procedure by a number of Ministers who issued Written Answers on the Friday before Christmas, to avoid publicity, will the Leader of the House protect the position of back


benchers and ensure that these Ministers make statements to the House on matters about which they chose not to be questioned? In particular, will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Industry to explain the circumstances of the grant made to the Kirkby co-operative, clearly against the advice of all the advisers placed there to advise him on such matters?

Mr. Short: My right hon. Friend has made two announcements about this already. I think the first was made on 2nd November. There is always a problem before a recess. A great many Government announcements are made. It is not a question of avoiding criticism. There were a great many announcements, some of which were made in the course of parliamentary statements, some in Written Answers, and some in Press releases. It would be impossible to make them all on the Floor of the House. We would then never get any business done. I am looking into this matter very carefully. All statements come to me before they are made in the House. I shall certainly bear the point in mind.

Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend provide time for the House to debate the Sixth Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, which demonstrates the urgent need to overhaul our delegated legislative procedures in relation to the EEC, since it involves a statutory instrument which may not be valid and actions by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise which also may not have been valid last year? Will my right hon. Friend also provide time for us to debate the report on top salaries, since some hon. Members would like an opportunity to reject the very large handouts to top people which the Government have made?

Mr. Short: I cannot promise time to debate either of those matters in the near future. With regard to the first matter raised by my hon. Friend, let me remind him that I said just now that the Select Committee on Procedure was considering this whole question and going very wide. It would be better to await the Select Committee's report.

Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the item on Monday's business concerning the motion on EEC

documents? This takes up the question raised by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). These are very complex matters. I understand that many of the documents may require amendment. Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give this matter careful consideration and see whether we do not have adequate time to consider these important questions.
In an earlier exchange, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the need to accommodate in parliamentary business some discussion of the method of consulting the British people. I have a list of papers which have dropped from the Government's table during this Parliament. If the Leader of the House would care to see it, I will pass it to him. These are the Public Bills now before the House. On this list there are 170 statutory instruments subject to the negative procedure, only one of which has been discussed in the lifetime of this Parliament. All members of the Opposition have a great deal of sympathy with the Leader of the House in the kind of colleagues that he has who insist on deluging the parliamentary programme to such a point that congestion combines with inefficiency and Parliament really is reduced to an absolute laughing stock. The Leader of the House represents everyone in this House, to an extent. I hope that he will take very seriously the extent to which the present Government are making the working of Parliament almost impossible. It will not be the fault of the Opposition if progress with this load is not as quick as the right hon. Gentleman hopes.

Mr. Short: The other deluge is the documents coming from the EEC, and that is not the fault of the present Government. That is one of the main pressures at present. We are considering that and doing all that we can to help in the matter.
If the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) suggests that more time should be devoted to Monday's business, I will look at that. The present intention is for a debate lasting one and a half hours. They are not really very complicated matters. As regards business generally, the number of statutory instruments has not increased over what it was when the right hon. Gentleman's party was in office. There is a big legislative programme; we are proud of it,


and we intend to get it all through this Session.

Mr. Greville Janner: Does my right hon. Friend recall that this House was promised long ago that the Law Commission would report last autumn on fraudulent exclusion clauses in car parking and other contracts for the provision of services? Nothing has happened. The Government cannot act, nor can the Director General of Fair Trading, before the Law Commission reports. May we have a debate on the subject in order to push matters along?

Mr. Short: I agree that there is a problem here, but I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate on it. The Law Commission is having great difficulties because of the pressure of work. But I will look into the position.

Sir Bernard Braine: I do not want the Leader of the House to take this personally, but it is not good enough, week after week, for sympathetic answers to be given to requests for debates on the world food crisis and upon the British Government's strategy on aid and development and then for the Government not to provide time for such important matters to be debated. Therefore, I again plead with the right hon. Gentleman to see whether arrangements cannot be made for these very important matters, in which the Government are making a contribution, to be debated on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Short: Both sides of the House have to consider debates of this kind. In the parliamentary year the Opposition have 29 days available. The Government have only 60 days for the whole legislative programme. We have problems, and both sides of the House have obligations. I will look at this, and I hope that the Opposition will look at it to see whether they cannot give up a Supply Day for the subject.

Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the Opposition that, as a result of their forcing the United Kingdom into the Common Market, Common Market regulations and statutory instruments coming from the Community are now a fait accompli?

Mr. Short: I am sure that the Opposition have heard that. As I said before,

that is one of the great pressures on us, and I hope that we are evolving a method of dealing with them.

Mr. Watt: When shall we have an opportunity to debate the ludicrous situation in the fishing industry, where Scottish boats are tied up to piers when hundreds of foreign boats sweep the seas clean just outside the 12-mile limit?

Mr. Short: Not next week, I am afraid, though I realise that there is a problem.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: When?

Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend say when we can expect the legislation to set up the National Enterprise Board and the Welsh Development Agency which will be associated with that board?

Mr. Short: The First Industry (No. 1) Bill, which deals, among other matters, with the NEB, will be published in the near future. The Bills concerning the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency will come rather later.

Sir John Rodgers: In view of the recent statement by the Minister of State, Home Office, during his visit to the Far East, is there any chance of our debating the subject of immigration in the near future?

Mr. Short: I am afraid not in the very near future.

Mr. Spearing: In the last week before the Christmas Recess the Scrutiny Committee suggested that this House should look at the accounts of the EEC and the budget for the forthcoming year, and the Treasury provided a 30-page note on the subject. My right hon. Friend will appreciate that we were not able to give this consideration at the time of our general debate on the EEC immediately before Christmas. Will he add that to the list of the documents that we are to discuss between now and Easter?

Mr. Short: I wrote to my hon. Friend about this a few days ago. Certainly I will look into it. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is meeting the Scrutiny Committee about it in the near future.

Mr. Tim Renton: Does not the Leader of the House think that his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) about the funds being advanced by the Secretary of State to the Kirkby co-operative a very unsatisfactory one? I understand from a Written Answer to a Question of mine by the Secretary of State for Industry that he is proposing no change in the rôle of the Industrial Development Advisory Board in his forthcoming legislation. In the circumstances, ought he not to explain to us how he can advance so much money to the Kirkby co-operative against the advice of the board—unless it is simply for ideological experiment in management?

Mr. Short: There is no question of doing this for ideological reasons. I do not think that the Government are obliged to take the board's advice on every occasion. In this case, the Government took it into account, but there were other factors. There is a high unemployment figure there. We felt that this was the right kind of workers' co-operative to start, and we have high hopes that it will succeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares those hopes. Incidentally, the first instalment of the grant was paid yesterday.

Mr. Fernyhough: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Government supporters are delighted when we hear of the Secretary of State for Industry standing up to his civil servants, instead of being led by them like a donkey?

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the Leader of the House proposing to arrange for a debate on the proposals which he announced to the House for the better discussion of Northern Irish matters and, if so, when?

Mr. Short: I was not intending that we should have a debate of the whole thing. It was a very simple little tripartite proposal that I made that motions should be put down to set up the Committee.

Mr. Lipton: May I suggest that we take the EEC before the Local Government (Scotland) Bill on Monday? Let

that Bill come on later and let us deal with really important matters first.

Mr. Short: The Local Government (Scotland) Bill is a very important one. Normally it would have gone to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading but we have had approaches from a number of quarters in the House that the Second Reading should be taken on the Floor of the House. That is why it is not going to the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that before Christmas he promised to try to find time for a debate on the Finer report on the one-parent family. Can he now give some indication when that will happen? If we are to get bogged down with European legislation, will he perhaps consider setting up a European Grand Committee?

Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman's last suggestion is a very interesting one. Perhaps he will let me look at it; he might like to talk to me about it. There has been a brief debate on the first matter he raised. I will bear in mind what he has said but I cannot promise any time in the near future.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL (DEBATE)

Mr. Speaker: For the debate on Thursday 23rd January on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill, hon. Members may hand into my office by 9.30 on the morning of Wednesday 22nd January their names and the topics which they wish to raise. The ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The scope of this Bill is "commensurate with the whole range of administrative policy". It covers the Votes on Account for both Defence and Civil Services 1975–76, as set out in House of Commons Papers 42 and 43, and the Defence and Civil Supplementary Estimates for 1974–75 set out in House of Commons Papers 72 and 73.
I shall put out the result of the ballot later on Wednesday 22nd January.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Ordered,
That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

Ordered,
That the White Fish Authority (Research and Development Grants) Order 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Edward Short.]

ANIMALS FOR SLAUGHTER (EXPORT)

4.15 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That this House pays tribute to the work of Lord O'Brien's Committee on the Export of Animals for Slaughter (Command Paper No. 5566); and considers that, in view of the progress made in establishing international welfare safeguards and of other relevant considerations, the export trade in animals destined for slaughter should now be resumed under close control to member countries of the European Economic Community and to such other countries as can provide adequate safeguards for the animals in question.
The subject of this motion is a matter of deep interest and concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is a concern that is shared by the people of this country generally.
Over the years, I have taken a close interest in animal welfare and in veterinary matters generally. There are many items of animal health and welfare legislation that I have helped to the statute book. I recall, in particular, the valuable welfare safeguards that we introduced following the report of the Brambell Committee and my personal involvement in the work of the Council of Europe on the protection of animals in international transport. In many of these matters hon. Members on both sides of the House, irrespective of party alignments, have played their part, and I believe that we British can justly claim to have been among the front runners in setting welfare standards that others have followed and I am proud to have been associated with much of this work.
Before going further, I would like to emphasise one central point. There are, in this House and in the country generally, people to whom the export of animals will always be repugnant. They are implacably opposed to it. Though I am not opposed to it, I assure them that I respect their dedication to the cause and understand the motives that inspire them. I hope that they in turn will appreciate that my colleagues and I and some of their colleagues, in reaching a different conclusion on this issue, are no less concerned to maintain and improve our animal welfare standards.
I am often disturbed at the tendency to see the nation as being divided into opposing camps—the welfarists and those who do not care, or even the welfarists against the farmers. In my experience, these are wholly false distinctions. No single group of people possesses a monopoly of feeling on animal welfare, and to make such distinctions can only generate misguided emotion and resentment. In our debate today, hon. Members will, I know, wish to see the subject examined as rationally and coolly as possible.
The House will recall the anxiety over the export trade in animals for slaughter which resulted in the appointment in 1957 of the Balfour Committee. That Commitee's recommendations provided a framework for welfare arrangements which applied at first to cattle exported for slaughter, and from 1964 onwards to sheep and pigs. The framework became known as the Balfour Assurances. Belgium, France, Italy, the Netherlands and West Germany gave us the assurances for cattle. The extension to sheep and pigs was accepted by all these countries except France.
Now what was the effect of the assurances? We did not export cattle, sheep and pigs for slaughter unless the receiving country had given us certain undertakings. But we did allow exports of store cattle and store pigs without restrictions. Exports of store sheep were, however, confined to the countries that gave us the Balfour Assurances for that species, the reason being that most store sheep would also be in a fit state for immediate slaughter. Exports from Northern Ireland to the Republic of Ireland across the land boundary were uncontrolled. The Republic's welfare arrangements were broadly comparable to our own, and controls between the two countries could not have been effective.
Over the years there was growing doubt about the way in which the Balfour Assurances were working. Public disquiet came to a head in 1973 and on 12th July of that year the House approved a motion,
That this House shares the growing concern about the conditions under which animals for slaughter are exported, transported and slaughtered overseas: welcomes the recent Government decision to suspend the issuing of export licences for live sheep: and, mind-

ful of animal welfare, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to establish an independent inquiry into this trade, and in the meantime to suspend the issuing of licences for the export of live animals for slaughter overseas.
I voted for that motion.
We were then faced with widespread doubt whether the welfare safeguards for the export trade were always operating as they should and I believed the time had come for a stocktaking. Hon. Members opposite accepted the will of the House. They proceeded with their intention to appoint a Committee of Inquiry; and they suspended the issue of export licences pending the results of the inquiry. Moreover, to check possible evasion, they thought it right that the suspension should apply not only to export licences for slaughter animals but also to exports of store animals intended for further fattening. This was because the distinction between the two categories can sometimes be difficult to draw. I accepted this and we have continued to operate the same policy.
The Committee of Inquiry was appointed under the able and distinguished chairmanship of Lord O'Brien of Lothbury. The report was published in March last year and since then has been the subject of careful study. I know that some hon. Members have been impatient for this debate, but we have had to have this careful study. We invited the views of home interests. On those recommendations with international aspects we consulted those Governments that joined with us in the Balfour Assurances, and we have followed up the initiative taken by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) by discussing common EEC welfare safeguards within the European Community. We have had discussions with them.
I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in thanking Lord O'Brien and the distinguished members of his committee for their willingness to undertake this sensitive assignment. They could not hope to please everybody. Their task called for wisdom and for a careful collation and analysis of evidence, part fact and part opinion. My right hon. Friends and I pay tribute to the committee for its thorough and impartial review and for the basis it has provided to reappraise the decision of July 1973 in the light of the facts.
Let me deal first with the question whether the Balfour Assurances were adequate. The committee found that, despite their good influence over the years, the assurances had not always been observed—which vindicates the decision of this House in July 1973. However, in my view there was no overt failure on the part of any Government to honour their obligations. The trouble lay in the inevitable shortcomings of the Balfour arrangements. Also, the O'Brien Committee commented unfavourably on the business practices of a few of the individuals involved in the trade. I think it is sad that such strictures should have been necessary.
Under the Balfour Assurances, the importing countries made certain undertakings about animals exported from the United Kingdom for slaughter: they would not travel more than 100 km—about 65 miles—from the port of disembarkation; they would not be re-exported; they would be fed, watered and sheltered while awaiting slaughter; they would be slaughtered only after stunning electrically or by captive bolt pistol. Exports to Italy were to be by direct sea or air transport. The Balfour Assurances were obtained through normal diplomatic channels. They were not embodied in any formal treaty or convention, and successive British Governments regarded the operation of the assurances as a matter for the overseas Governments. Any allegations of infringements which were capable of investigation were referred to the Government of the importing country.
After careful examination of the evidence, the O'Brien Committee concluded that the Balfour Assurances had been breached on a number of occasions. Sheep had on occasion been re-exported from one country to another; animals exported for slaughter had sometimes travelled more than 100 km from the port of disembarkation to the abattoir, and the committee was not satisfied that the mode of transport abroad or the methods of handling livestock had always been beyond criticism.
But it is relevant that the House should not overlook the committee's comments in paragraph 39 of the report. There it emphasises that there is a great deal of stock movement within the

United Kingdom in the normal course of agricultural production and that the distances can be considerable, sometimes involving journeys by sea, as many hon. Members intimately connected with the industry know. At the abattoirs, the committee found that practices during the waiting period in the lairages were very similar to those in the United Kingdom. Water was normally freely available up to the time of slaughter, and if the waiting period was likely to be more than a day, food was also provided. The committee also found that humane slaughter regulations were in force in all the countries which gave us the Balfour Assurances. These regulations require stunning before bleeding.
It is clear that these findings of the O'Brien Committee point to a state of affairs far less disturbing than some would have us believe, and I hope they will be heeded by those who have sought to stir up public emotion on the more flimsy of the allegations. It is equally clear, on the other hand, that the loosely arranged Balfour Assurances were not good enough. We needed something better. So much for the past. Let us now look to the future.
The O'Brien Committee reached three main conclusions: first, that a permanent ban on the export of live animals for slaughter would be unjustified on either welfare or economic grounds; second, that the implementation of common European welfare regulations covering transport and slaughter conditions would be the most effective means of safeguarding the welfare of animals in intra-Community trade; third, that safeguards for non-EEC countries should be no less stringent if trade in food animals were to be permitted. The Government agree with each of those conclusions.
In its report, the committee welcomed the initiatives taken by the Council of Europe on a convention governing the protection of animals during international transport, and by the EEC Council on a draft directive on humane slaughter. The committee doubted, however, whether these long-term European measures would be implemented quickly enough, and so it recommended a number of interim arrangements that would serve to enable the trade to be restarted. These interim arrangements involved a supervisory body representing home and overseas trade,


veterinary, welfare and Government interests. The supervisory body would maintain a register of approved exporters and appoint a small team of inspectors. Registration would be a precondition of exporting. There would be an initial forfeitable deposit and a headage levy. Exports would be confined to approved slaughterhouses. Certificates of slaughter would be required. For store animals there would be a special declaration procedure subject to spot checks.
We have considered these proposed interim arrangements very carefully. All the welfare interests we consulted doubted whether they could be enforced in practice. I think they are correct in their assessment. Some of the interim proposals would, moreover, be unacceptable to other countries concerned whose co-operation would be essential. The register of approved exporters, the initial deposit and the headage levy would require legislation. The proposed supervisory body would have to rely on reports from a United Kingdom inspectorate operating abroad with a view to applying sanctions—an arrangement that we could not reasonably expect other countries to accept. Neither would it be acceptable for us to specify the abattoirs in the member States to which our animals would be consigned for slaughter. This is a matter for the veterinary service of each importing country.
Our doubts about the practicability of the proposed interim arrangements explain why we decided to concentrate on long-term European measures and not to became enmeshed in temporary expedients. Our efforts towards that end have not been in vain. I am glad to tell the House that progress on long-term measures has been faster than the O'Brien Committee thought possible.
The EEC Council of Ministers has now adopted a directive on the stunning of animals before slaughter. It will be in operation throughout the Community by not later than 1st July this year. Its provisions are already widely in operation. Furthermore, a Commission working group of experts from the member States is considering proposals for a directive to give effect in Community law to the Council of Europe convention on the welfare of animals during international transport. I understand that good progress is being made, and the Commission will

shortly be making proposals to the Council of Ministers.
In the meantime we, with Belgium, France and Germany, ratified this Council of Europe convention with effect from 1st July 1974, bringing the total number of EEC member States which have done so to six. The Netherlands, the Irish Republic and Italy are expected to follow suit in the near future. The EEC has already adopted ratification of this convention as soon as possible as the joint policy of its members.
I think the House will agree that these are most important advances. But there are other relevant measures affecting the export trade in live animals. The EEC directive—

Mr. Neil Marten: The right hon. Gentleman referred to this as being an EEC directive. Could he give an assurance that the legislation that will flow from that directive in the national Parliaments will be through very soon, because the motion on the Order Paper says "now"?

Mr. Peart: I think the date of 1st July which I have suggested shows that we are anxious to speed this up, and it will be put into operation immediately.
The EEC directive on intra-Community trade in cattle and pigs contains—and I will deal with this in detail—animal health provisions that are of direct benefit to welfare. I will spell out the position as regards the directive. Under the provisions of this directive animals imported for slaughter have to go through recognised frontier posts and will be subject to inspection on arrival by the authorised veterinary officer of the importing country. These are very important measures. All animals for intra-Community trade must have remained in the specific country to which they were sent for at least three months in the case of slaughter animals and six months in the case of production or breeding animals. It would not be possible, therefore, for animals to be re-exported immediately to other EEC countries.
There are other tangible benefits under the terms of this health directive. It provides that animals for slaughter must be dealt with as soon as possible after they arrive at an abattoir. And for store cattle and pigs there are specific health requirements, for certification and for


detention on the farm in the importing country, which would act as a deterrent to anyone other than those engaged in a bona fide trade in store animals.
To summarise the new arrangements, this package of welfare measures and allied provisions is a considerable achievement. Its particular advantage over arrangements of the Balfour type is that it will add the weight of Community law to national welfare provisions and will introduce a new mechanism for investigating complaints.
Whatever one's views about the Community, in the interests of what we are trying to achieve it is right to pay tribute where it is due, and I hope that no one will be prejudiced on this matter. The Government consider that these arrangements meet the specification of common European welfare regulations covering both transport and slaughter conditions recommended by the O'Brien Committee as the most effective means of safeguarding the welfare of all animals entering the livestock trade within the European Community.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify the point about the date to which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) referred? When he says that the date of the directive will be 1st July—

Mr. Peart: I said the operative date.

Mr. Powell: Does that mean the relevant legislation will already be in force by then in all Community countries?

Mr. Peart: I cannot give that absolute assurance but we are having discussions with the members of the Community—for example, with Ireland—so that this directive which was adopted in November 1974 shall be operative by 1st July 1975.

Mr. Richard Body: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there are at least 100 directives that have not been enacted by national Parliaments for several years?

Mr. Peart: I heard the previous discussion with the Leader of the House, but I am a member of the Council of Ministers and I intend to press for this directive to be fulfilled.
I realise that some hon. Members may feel apprehensive about the disappearance of the 100 km limit on distance from the port of disembarkation to the abattoir—one of the features of the Balfour assurances. Let me quote paragraph 64 of the O'Brien Committee on this matter:
There is, in our view, nowadays no justification for a distance limitation of such an artificial nature provided always—

(i) that each consignment of animals is moving to a pre-arranged destination;
(ii) that the animals receive a veterinary inspection at the port of disembarkation and are judged to be fit for that specified journey; and
(iii) that whatever rest period is judged necessary is observed and that adequate food and water are provided."

All those would be taken care of under the European arrangements I have just described.
This leaves the question of exports to countries not in the Community. For those countries we encounter problems of greater distance and different cultures. There is no universal law and no international backing except where a country has ratified the Council of Europe Transport Convention.
Clearly it would be wrong to contemplate allowing exports to those countries until we could be fully satisfied about their welfare safeguards. In the past this trade has been virtually confined to breeding and store stock. Let me be absolutely clear on this; we have no intention of reopening this trade to any destination unless we can be completely assured that the conditions under which the animals are transported and are treated after they arrive will be fully in accordance with the standards we demand.
Finally, may I say a few words on the other O'Brien recommendations.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman must appreciate that we have some duty in this matter. We cannot part with these matters on a basis of doubt and uncertainty. I am obliged to him for his courtesy in giving way, even if it seemed to be reluctantly exercised, uncharacteristically, in this case.
Would the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House the significance and


intention of the word "now"? The motion reads:
should now be resumed under close control to member countries of the European Economic Community …".
That would mean about 1st July according to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. But what does "now" mean? "Now" on a motion passed on 16th January would normally mean 16th January, but there is a gap of six months.

Mr. Peart: I believe that in that interim period there will have to be further discussions, and I will act on this as quickly as possible, even before the directive. If we can get agreement that individual countries will fulfil the directive and it will operate fully for the Community from 1st July, that is a step forward.
I want to deal now with strengthening the inspection system and making public our codes of practice and understandings. This is an important recommendation—investigating further technical problems such as air transport; keeping export slaughterhouse capacity under review; and encouraging United Kingdom meat manufacturers to use more home supplies. We accept all these recommendations and some of them have already been put into effect.
We shall consider the recommendation that the exporter should pay for pre-export inspection in the context of charges for export certification generally.
Recommendation 18 about the use of experienced stevedores will involve consultation with the port authorities and with the appropriate unions.
So much for the O'Brien Committee and its valuable report. I have so far made a point of dealing with these issues solely on animal welfare grounds because it is the welfare considerations that I believe must always be predominant. But we must not overlook the implications for the farming industry. At times of market surplus, the possibility of an export trade in food animals can have a useful effect in sustaining farmers' confidence. We can also derive a certain contribution to our balance of trade. I must also remind hon. Members of the fodder shortage that faces many of our farmers this winter, especially in Wales and the South-West.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing: And in Scotland.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: May I return to a point which is clearly disturbing the House—the difference between operating licences from tomorrow and from 1st July? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that licences will be granted only to those exporters who are willing to abide by the conditions which he has outlined, and that in any event if anyone is found to be in breach of those conditions no further licence will be issued to him?

Mr. Pearl: I accept that. If the House passes the motion, I would act immediately. We would have licensing arrangements basically on the lines suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Peart: I am sorry, but I must conclude. I have given way very frequently and many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate.
The re-opening of an export trade in food animals would not, in my view, provide a complete solution to the difficulties that these farmers face, but the shipment of any significant number of animals would be bound to reflect favourably on the fodder situation in the country.
The O'Brien Report does not recommend an indefinite suspension of exports. It recommends that exports should be resumed if proper safeguards can be provided. I have attempted to show that, within the European Community—and the Community includes all the countries to which we have traditionally exported livestock for slaughter—several safeguards now operate, or are being brought into operation, which did not apply prior to the debate in July 1973.
The intention of EEC countries is abundantly clear. There is already a directive on humane slaughter and a draft directive on transport conditions is being prepared. The Council of Europe Convention on Transport Conditions is already widely observed. It is for these reasons that I can with confidence recommend hon. Members to support the motion.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive speech on a subject much more complex than appears at first sight. One point which has emerged has caused a certain anxiety in the House, and I shall return to it later.
This is a most important subject. It is one on which people feel very strongly. Where animals are concerned, our sensitivities are naturally aroused and it can be difficult to be objective, which the right hon. Gentleman certainly was. I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have been regretting the delay shown by the Government in announcing their conclusions on the report, which came out l0½ months ago, and in bringing the matter before the House for debate and decision. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman, however, I think that it is apparent that much work and thought has been put into this matter. Indeed, more than that, there has been considerable discussion and negotiation with the European Community, with helpful results. It may be, therefore, that the time has been well spent, but the right hon. Gentleman must understand the impatience which many of us have felt.
Through the welter of argument and disagreement that properly characterises this House. I believe that every hon. Member shares the same feeling of deep concern about the welfare of animals. We are all intent on seeing that animals in any circumstances are treated with the greatest care and humanity. It was this very concern that led to the last debate in July 1973, which in turn resulted in the ban on the export of live animals which has existed ever since.
The Minister read out that resolution of the House, so I will not repeat it. But no one in that debate sought to question, let alone to amend, any except the last part of it. The House was unanimous in its concern about the conditions in which animals were exported. Already, the Conservative Government had taken action in banning the export of live sheep because evidence existed that certain continental countries were not or might not be adhering to the full Balfour Assurances. That was done by the then

Government without any particular pressure.
That same Conservative Government wanted an independent inquiry into the circumstances and conditions surrounding this trade. The farming and livestock industries and the House wanted it. The only controversy—the one which led to the vote on the addendum—was whether there should be a complete ban on exports while the inquiry was in progress, or whether that ban should apply only to those countries where evidence existed that the assurances were not being kept. The right hon. Gentleman said that he voted for the motion. With respect, I must remind him that he did not. No one did, because no one challenged it. The vote arose on the addendum, and in the event the House decided on a complete ban for the duration of the inquiry.
A committee was then set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who was then Minister of Agriculture, under the chairmanship of Lord O'Brien, and I endorse completely all that the right hon. Gentleman has said about the work of Lord O'Brien and his colleagues. I am sure that we are all grateful for the care, thoroughness and expedition with which they discharged their responsibility. They were not given an easy task. They reported in six months, and now we have the opportunity to look at the matter again in the light of their findings.
As the committee did, so must this House start from the basic premise that we live in a meat-eating world. That means slaughter, which, however humanely carried out, can never be a pleasant spectacle. But as most people eat meat it is an inescapable process. Therefore, we are dealing not only with an animal welfare problem but with an economic problem as well which cannot be ignored. The economic arguments are dealt with in paragraphs 89 to 96 of the report. They are not particularly strong one way or the other, and the committee concluded that the issue was one which should be settled on welfare considerations. It is, in any case, the welfare aspect that is uppermost in everyone's mind.
The House will recall the criticisms and allegations which had been widely expressed and which the committee had


to deal with. These included overcrowding in the lairages, lack of food and water, inadequate rest periods and veterinary inspections, and travel in excess of 100 kilometres. Instances have been cited in this House and outside and the committee looked into them and reported in considerable detail.
No one would deny that if the allegations had been substantiated a highly disturbing state of affairs would have been revealed—indeed, an intolerable and unacceptable state of affairs. The investigations therefore were awaited with natural anxiety, and they showed, at the end of the day, that, while a certain number of the criticisms were well founded, in many cases the evidence did not bear close scrutiny. Every stage in the trade was looked at, from conditions in the United Kingdom, prior to export, to slaughter facilities abroad. The export of calves, the loading and unloading at docks, sea and air transport facilities and transport on the Continent, and the problem of animals being re-exported were all studied most carefully, and the results are in the report.
I am sorry that some people have criticised the O'Brien Committee because it did not conduct its inquiries incognito. The report is frank about this. Paragraph 36 says that the committee considered this possibility very seriously but rejected it because of what it regarded as overwhelming political and practical objections.
The committee had to decide how to set about its task, and I think that its approach was the most sensible. I feel strongly that the integrity of the committee must be respected, and I am confident that the House will share that view. There is no justification for any other attitude, and if some of the committee's conclusions are not to every one's taste, that is no reason for turning on the committee. It was concerned with evidence and facts and actuality, and its report describes what it found.
The committee, at the end of its deliberations, produced a unanimous report. The first of its 24 conclusions and recommendations is:
We do not consider that a permanent ban on the export of live animals for slaughter is justified on either welfare or economic grounds.

That is a far-reaching and positive conclusion that cannot have been reached lightly. In a speech in another place on 6th November the noble Lord O'Brien as reported at column 487—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: That is not allowed.

Mr. Pym: May I quote that, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): I understand that the right hon. Gentleman may quote a Minister's statement in another place, but no other noble Lord.

Mr. Pym: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that I can indicate clearly the point that I wish to bring out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is free to paraphrase what was said.

Mr. Pym: The point is quite simple. More than half the members of the committee started out on the basis that they would be very reluctant converts to the kind of conclusion that I have just read. The truth and fact of the matter is that at the end of the six months' inquiry the Committee came to the unanimous recommendation to which I have just referred.

Mr. William Molloy: The right hon. Gentleman has rightly made the point apropos the conclusions, but I think that he would agree that those conclusions depend on a number of prerequisites preceding them in the report. The conclusions are valid only if the prerequisites are adhered to.

Mr. Pym: I ask the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to be a little patient. I have no doubt that this first unanimous conclusion owes much to the next 20 recommendations, most of which deal directly with the control and welfare aspects.
The committee found scope for tighter inspections and controls on a variety of important details and for the strengthening of the Balfour Assurances and the procedure surrounding them. All this would be welcome to the House, which hoped to obtain out of the inquiry extra measures of protection, vigilance and reassurance.
Recommendations 4 to 9 list a series of safeguards to be exercised under the authority of a new supervisory body. The importance of these proposals, at any rate in part, is to ensure not only good welfare but that such welfare is seen to be carried out.
I was proposing to ask the Minister—in a sense I still do—to tell us more about these proposals when he replies and whether and, if so, how and why, he is satisfied that they are practical, because other countries are involved and there could be difficulties. We must be certain about the co-operation of importing countries in carrying out the safeguards to the full. The import of what the right hon. Gentleman said just now was that these proposals have in a sense been overtaken by his discussions and negotiations with European countries. The Minister said that these had gone faster and further than the O'Brien Committee expected.
Is the Minister telling the House that those discussions and negotiations are in themselves better and more effective than the O'Brien proposals? This is an important matter because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) pointed out and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have indicated, the motion refers to resuming the export subject to certain conditions "now".
I think that I am right in saying, although the Minister did not say this, that the new regulations and directives and the effective measures about which he spoke are in force now, but that they are not backed by law. I think that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to indicate that they would be backed by law by July. However, I understand that they are in force now. If the Minister wishes to interrupt me to clear up this point by telling us what the true position is, I think that the House would be grateful to him.

Mr. Peart: I give that assurance. It is our intention, if the motion is carried, to reopen EEC trade immediately and to accept applications for other destinations subject to careful investigation. The assurances given are better—that is improvement—and the directives will

later provide the force of law described by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pym: Will the Minister confirm that these safeguards are in force so that, if the motion were passed and the trade resumed, the House would know that they are in force now?

Mr. Peart: I think (that they are. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is no question that (they are in force, but we want the backing of law. There are problems with third countries. We would have to look into applications for destinations which are different from the Community. That would be a matter for discussion with individual Governments.

Mr. Pym: Is the position that the trade would be resumed with countries in Europe where they are in force, albeit not as yet backed by law, but emphatically not with countries where such safeguards are not in force? This is an important matter which the House will wish to measure carefully.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have a list of laws which are already in being in France which are not being carried out at the moment? I also have a list of times and dates from witnesses who have seen those laws being ignored. How can the Minister or anybody else be sure that any new law will be carried out?

Mr. Pym: In those circumstances, I understand that no more licences would be issued. I do not think that we want to get back to a series of allegations of what is happening or might happen. What we are considering today is the result of the inquiry into the evidence. That is an important point and I hope that the Minister will return to it this evening.

Mr. David Crouch: I do not wish to raise difficulties—I want to help the House and myself—but, not being a lawyer, I do not understand what is meant by being "in force" without legislation to back that requirement. Could my right hon. Friend help me on that point?

Mr. Pym: I do not find any difficulty with that point. Many things which are done as a matter of routine do not necessarily depend on backing in law.


The important point is that they are being and must be seen to be carried out. That is one of the areas of public anxiety.
There is an important recommendation about the carcase trade which has been on the increase for a number of years, and markedly so in the early 1970s. I think that we would all like this trade to be expanded. The purpose of the recommendation referred to in paragraph 96 is to see that the capacity and location of export-approved slaughterhouses keep in step with the growth of the carcase trade. I should like the capacity and location to be ahead of the growth of the carcase trade so that facilities are available to take account of the consequences of a growth in that trade.
Another important aspect of the subject is the impact of the temporary ban on the livestock sector of agriculture. This is not the occasion to go into the causes of the slump in the livestock market. But this country has a greatly increased stock of animals, some of which are starving. There are probably 14½ million head of cattle to feed—I have seen estimates of that total—but the supplies of fodder are estimated to be adequate for only 13 million head. The slaughterhouses are working flat out. They cannot cope with such a surplus of beasts. It is hard to quantify accurately the loss through malnutrition and starvation, but estimates are as high as 1,000 head per week. If that is even remotely right—I think that it probably is—that is about as ghastly and cruel a situation as can be imagined by anyone.
There is a crying need to take surplus animals off British farms, but they cannot be slaughtered here in time. The capacity just does not exist. The miserable hay harvests and the poor weather last summer are acts of God. But when farmers expanded their herds in the early 1970s, they did so in the knowledge of and on the basis of a trade in live animals which was suddenly removed. This removal is not the basic cause of today's problem. I am not one to exaggerate. But certainly it is a contributory factor in the current crisis, and one of peculiar poignancy. I believe that the House would wish to take it into account in the debate. In my view it would be a dereliction of our responsibility not to take it into account. But I put it no higher

than that, because the heart and essence of the question we must decide today is the health and welfare aspect of the export trade.

Mr. F. A. Burden: If the arguments are correct about the number of cattle which are starving here, it would seem that it would be necessary to export immediately to the Continent about 3 million cattle in order to alleviate the situation—at any rate, very considerable quantities. At the same time we are importing from Ireland and there is a glut of beef on the Continent.

Mr. Pym: I think that my hon. Friend exaggerates. I sought not to do that. I have very deliberately said that this matter is not the centre of our debate today but that it is a factor to take into account. What I say is that were the ban to be lifted that would make a contribution towards preventing that malnutrition and starvation about which we are so worried.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the independent report that the BBC gave was that the 1,000 deaths a week were merely in Devon and Cornwall only—not in the whole United Kingdom—and that it is as invalid to plead against this relief that opening exports would not relieve the whole of the problem as it would be to say that because all the passengers on the "Titanic" could not get into the available lifeboats, none of them should have got into any of them? This is a relief which can be given to some animals but not all. That is no reason why this relief should be denied to as many animals as would benefit from it.

Mr. Pym: I am aware that the figure I mentioned is the same figure as has been mentioned in relation to the West Country only. But I have found it most difficult to get any accurate figure, and therefore I pitch this on the low side. I have been careful to say that whereas it is peculiarly important at present, it is not a point that is fundamental to the decision which the House is being asked to take. The effect of the ban on our immediate situation must be put into the balance.
How then does the balance of the argument lie? I understand and respect the feelings of those who believe that animals


should not be transported overseas in any circumstances because they feel that any such movement is prejudicial to the animals. But is it prejudicial? Not only the House but the industry itself and everyone wanted the evidence examined and tested. This has been done—thoroughly, openly and frankly. The result is here in the report. Its conclusion, based on a dispassionate analysis of the evidence, is that a continuation of the ban is not justified but that there should be revised safeguards. The House will note that particular attention was given to the views of the British Veterinary Association.
I believe that the House will feel that the objective for which it voted in the July 1973 decision has been achieved. To the Committee's principal conclusion, which I read out, must be added the fact that a lifting of the ban now would be a positive benefit and bonus to the welfare of our high headage of cattle in Britain today, and the fact that when the House voted to introduce the ban in 1973, it did so on a strictly temporary basis—that is to say, while the inquiry was in progress and making its independent assessment.
Now we have that assessment. It may not accord with what some people hoped for, but if we depart from the evidence we are embarking on a hazardous course. The evidence indicates most clearly that the fears expressed previously are at worst exaggerated and at best ill-founded.
The motion, like the report, is concerned with the close and strict exercise of the controls and the safeguards which will ensure the welfare of the animals involved. On this basis, I advise the House—in so far as any words of mine can carry weight—to support the motion.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. William Molloy: The O'Brien Report should go down in history as a memorable document, not merely because of its intrinsic value but because it will supply back benchers on both sides of the House with the opportunity to give their Front Benches a rude awakening as to what are really the facts of life of this issue.
It may be incumbent upon me to declare an interest in the debate, other than my personal interest. I am President

of the National Society for the Abolition of Factory Farming. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the gratitude of the association for the excellent manner in which my right hon. Friend the Minister, and the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) when he was Minister, received deputations from the association, and for their courtesy—[Interruption.] If I may say so to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), whose intervention I did not hear, he has already made one little speech, and it may be just as well now, if he wants to make a really intelligent speech, for him to remain silent, to listen to what I have to say, and to emulate it.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) made a plea, quite rightly, on behalf of us all when he said that we all believe that there must be proper consideration for all animals at all times. That is the sort of cliché which has been used over the past decade, but not much notice has been taken of it, and people are becoming concerned—I can understand that, particularly when such words are uttered—when the deeds which follow them follow much too tardily. In consequence, the words turn sour.
It has been said by both Front Bench speakers that people may see a report of an incident of maltreatment of animals, about which a great deal of publicity may be given, and naturally people react to that. Indeed, as the report says, very often when this happens people understandably get angry, but they then make the wrong assumption that the particular vulgar incident is the general practice when it is not. In examining these cases I have often found that the particular vulgar incident is in isolation. The more reprehensible incidents are almost commonplace. That is a point which the O'Brien Committee has overlooked.
It would be pointless for the House to receive a report from any committee but then be too shy to criticise it. Of course we acknowledge the work of such committees, but we should be failing in our duty to any committee if we thought but did not say that there were aspects of its report which were lax or that the conclusions drawn were erroneous. In making such criticisms we are paying full respect to such reports, and I hope to do something on those lines later.
Organisations other than my own have studied the report. They cannot be dismissed as emotional or as not knowing what they are talking about. I have read their reports. They include, for example, the report of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. It is as much incumbent upon me to read what the RSPCA says about the O'Brien Report as it is to read the O'Brien Report itself. It comes to a different conclusion from the O'Brien Report in many respects. The Farm and Food Society has examined the report and has come to a different conclusion from the members of the committee. The Crusade Against All Cruelty to Animals Limited has studied the report in detail and its conclusions are in many instances different. Organisations like the Council of Justice to Animals and Humane Slaughter Association have examined the report. They cannot be dismissed as irresponsible and emotional. They have discovered in the report lapses which they believe should be noted. All these organisations are unanimous in believing that, the O'Brien Report notwithstanding, this is not the time to raise the ban on the export of live animals.

Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Member agree that all the organisations he has mentioned are dedicated to a total ban on the export of live animals? Does he accept that before they entered into an inquiry they had already come to a conclusion and that that marks a completely diffierent attitude from that of an independent committee of inquiry which has no such objective?

Mr. Molloy: That was a sad interjection—

Mr. Ronald Atkins: It was pathetic.

Mr. Molloy: —because these associations were in existence for years before the problem arose. They have been concerned with animals welfare. It is wrong to say that they have prejudged the issue. They have examined the report. I invite the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to say that he has read the reports of the associations I referred to and that he finds them irresponsible.

Mr. Hooson: I have read the report of every organisation which has sent a report to me and I think they include all the bodies mentioned by the hon. Member. I respect their point of view. I accept that these people are genuinely concerned about animals. I was merely pointing out the difference between an organisation or individual with a mission and an independent body which is considering evidence and which has no conclusion in mind in deciding what is right or wrong.

Mr. Molloy: I give the hon. and learned Gentleman credit for complimenting the organisations and associations I have mentioned. I hope he accepts that but for their devotion to a cause it is unlikely that we would ever have had the O'Brien Report.

Mr. Winterton: I have just studied the list of those who gave both written and oral evidence to the committee. Why was it that neither the hon. Member nor his organisation appeared before the committee to give the evidence that he says exists?

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member has only now looked down the list to see whether my organisation gave evidence. The fact is that the society was not requested to do so even though it wanted to—

Mr. Winterton: Rubbish.

Mr. Molloy: The hon. Member keeps shouting "rubbish" but we are discussing here a very important report, not the contents of what is between his ears.
It would be wrong if we were to examine this whole problem simply from the point of view of the farmers and those whose living depends on the trade. Of course, there are many farmers who are just as dedicated to the welfare of animals as anyone else.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]—I am grateful to the hon. Member—

Mr. Molloy: I have not given way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. Is the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) rising to a point of order?

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I merely wanted to clarify—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An enormous number of right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. The more interruptions the fewer the contributions there will be. Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I was not rising to a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If it is not a point of order the hon. Member must allow the hon. Member who is addressing the House to continue.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rose in the normal way in debate to check a point made by the hon. Member. I did not claim that I was on a point of order. I merely rose to give the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) the opportunity of giving way as is the normal practice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the normal practice if the hon. Member gives way, for another Member to speak, but there was no indication that he was giving way. Let us continue now. Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will the hon. Member give way? I am most grateful. As I understood it, the hon. Member said that an organisation wanted to give evidence but was refused the right to give evidence by the O'Brien committee. If it wanted to give evidence why did it not do so? I did not understand. I thought that the hon. Member said that the O'Brien committee refused to allow some organisation in which the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) has an interest either to give oral or written evidence. If the hon. Member did not mean that, what did he mean?

Mr. Molloy: I did not give way to the hon. Gentleman before because he did not ask me to give way. I believe that he was on the fringe of being guilty of a serious abuse of the House. I do not intend to go back over all that ground again simply to get what I said into his mind. I do not intend either to succumb to any demands from him that I should answer any question. As I understand it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are in charge of the affairs of the House and not the hon. Member for Tiverton.
I wish now to proceed with my comments on the report and on the Balfour Assurances. We all know that these assurances were hardly worth the paper they were written on. We cannot, therefore, pin any hopes on voluntary observation of them, and I believe that some form of legislation will ultimately be required.
It is distressing to learn that the carcase trade cannot be carried out because of the lack of suitable transport. Surely that is something that even the farmers will want to look into. The ultimate objective of the report is stated on page 6, paragraph 21. It says:
We consider the allegations in detail in paragraphs 33–83 and we go on to discuss in paragraphs 84–96 the more general welfare and economic arguments which apply to this trade.
Then comes the important aspect:
The eventual objective must be for the movement of all animals for any purpose within the EEC to be carried on under common safeguards as outlined in paragraph 18, but these are unlikely to come into effect for some little time.
We must ask ourselves why. We must not rush into agreeing to the motion.
It is true that some reports have given a false impression of cruelty, but there has also been responsible Press and television evidence based on practical investigation. I know that some reports have simply been of one incident, but there have been detailed examinations by some British newspapers and the BBC, as a result of such incidents, to find out the general practice. Anyone who has seen or heard such reports must conclude that there is an unhappy state of affairs which we cannot ignore. The same applies to the export lairages, where the report has revealed unsatisfactory conditions.
The House would also be well advised to note the disgraceful business of re-export, mentioned in the report. That business is still indulged in by dodgers who are as cruel as they are artful, and we must stop it. Everyone, whichever side of the argument he is on, will want to see that sort of practice stopped.
There is a great deal in the report on which people who take contrary general views can agree. We should try to select them, to make sure that they at least are dealt with. In its thorough way the committee visited many other countries.


It found that after its visits many deficiencies at abattoirs were remedied. A permanent body could well put right many deficiencies and vulgarities.
The committee rightly mentions the Council of Europe Convention. This country is a signatory to that Convention. Any reasonable person would describe the Council of Europe's line as an ideal answer. It may be impossible to achieve the ideal, but we should work towards it.
The economic arguments are mentioned in paragraph 90. We should read not merely the conclusions but some of the arguments on which they are based.

Mr. Pym: All of them.

Mr. Molloy: The right hon. Gentleman did not quote all of them, but, from his responsible position, he should have done so. Time does not allow me to do it, although I am prepared to go through the whole lot.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman was interrupted, but he has already taken 20 minutes, and should not be provoked.

Mr. Molloy: I wish your chastisement had been exercised in the same gentle, kind manner a little earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because much of my 20 minutes has been taken up by other hon. Members.
The Committee says in paragraph 90:
As we have said in paragraph 21, economic considerations played only a secondary role in our thinking and we judged that in the final analysis the scale of the live export trade was such that in national terms its termination would be of relatively limited significance.
That is the economic argument. According to the report, maintenance of the ban would have relatively insignificant economic effects. Hon. Members who disagree have the right to challenge the committee on that.
I should like to have said many other things, but I realise that many other hon. Members wish to speak. The method of implementing the committee's recommendations is important. I do not want to interfere too much with the EEC countries, but I want their co-operation. We should have sensible discussions with them, but many people in this country desire firm legislation and efficient enforcement of the committee's recommendations. Till we can examine in

more detail how we shall legislate, and what sort of efficient enforcement we shall have, it is imperative that the ban be maintained. I hope that back benchers on both sides of the House will join me in opposing both Front Benches.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Godber: I shall speak briefly, because I know how many other hon. Members wish to speak. I am glad to have the opportunity to take part in the debate, because I was the Minister responsible for appointing the O'Brien Committee, and it is appropriate that I should say a few words.
My first words are words of unqualified thanks to Lord O'Brien and his colleagues for a clear, concise and comprehensive report. Whatever one's judgment of the report's findings, no one can find fault with its literary content. We should be most grateful, because we receive verbose reports from time to time, and it is a pleasure to read one that is brief and to the point.
The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) took enough time of the House to acquaint us all with his views, so I do not wish to take too long in referring to his speech. But I must take him up on his quotations from paragraph 21. The last thing he would have wished to do was to mislead the House or misrepresent the committee, but in quoting two sentences from that paragraph he left out material sentences between them. His quotations gave a connotation to the report which I do not think was intended. Before the hon. Gentleman spoke, I had underlined a sentence in the middle of the paragraph which I think is its key sentence. It says
We do not consider that the degree of stress involved in any one section of the export trade, nor its cumulative effect, is sufficient to justify a permanent ban.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Godber: I shall not give way, because I want to be brief, and I have merely been dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North.
I turn to the generality of the debate. I said on 12th July 1973:
The debate is not about motives but about methods. We all want to stamp out cruelty wherever we can, and there are two aspects we may have to consider. One is cruelty during transport. The other is cruelty at the point of


slaughter."—[Official Report, 12th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 1853.]
I want to speak largely about those matters, and particularly to take account of what the Minister said today. One or two aspects clearly disturbed a number of hon. Members, including me to some degree, in regard to the implementation of what he proposes. The right hon. Gentleman called attention to the speed with which the Council of Ministers had dealt with the matter. I am entitled to remind him and the House that in the debate in July 1973 I said that I intended to raise the matter and to press it. It was in September 1973 that I first raised it in the Council of Ministers. I had previously spoken to most of the other Ministers. I think that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will recognise that it was that initiative that led to the speedy consideration of this matter. I am not seeking credit—

Mr. Peart: On this matter I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I do so sincerely.

Mr. Godber: I was not seeking credit but seeking to make the point that the Council of Ministers was seized of the matter at that time. He has been able to conclude the discussions. I am glad that the other countries responded so readily. That is the tribute that I wanted to pay.
I turn to the specific issues of transport and slaughter. Having regard to what the Minister has said before the debate, I was expecting to hear him say something about the utilisation of the interim measures. I was surprised that he decided that that was not necessary. As he has made that decision I shall not make reference to those proposals, although I believe that some of them were realistic and could have been effective without introducing excessive governmental interference.
Basing himself on the O'Brien Report—and it is a clear indication of present practice and policy—the Minister has said that he intends to concentrate on the long-term measures. I am seeking to quote his words. He said that progress has been fast. He then referred to the Community directive on pre-stunning and gave 1st July 1975 as the operative date in the Community. Secondly, he referred

to the Community as a whole adopting the Council of Europe's Convention on Transport. It is about transport that so much of the complaint and accusations of the past have been based. They have centred around the Balfour Assurances.
Many Members have been genuinely concerned about the dangers of excessive transport and ineffective lairages. The basis of the Balfour Assurances was that we should limit the distance of transport. Paragraph 18 of the O'Brien Report tells us of the utilisation of the Council of Europe's Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport as the position when the report was printed. The paragraph says that the proposals
are moving towards ratification of this Convention. France, Germany and the United Kingdom ratified on 9th January 1974 and Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg had ratified prior to that date. In response to the discussion on animal welfare in the Council of Ministers on 25th September 1973 the Commission are working on a draft directive …
The Minister has told us that the Community is adopting an existing Council of Europe arrangement and, therefore, giving it the force of a Community directive. But already the United Kingdom has ratified and it is bound by the convention. That is important in relation to what the Minister was saying about a time factor. We know already that the United Kingdom Government have ratified the convention and are standing by it. Other countries in the Community, as set out in paragraph 18, have also ratified.
It would seem that the fears expressed by certain interventions can be dealt with by a reference to the Council of Europe measure having been adopted by individual countries. It is only the formal directive of the Community which has not yet been put into force. The convention is realistic. It is being operated and no one has claimed that there is any contravention of it in the countries concerned. That is an important assurance which will help the House in accepting the Minister's position.
I turn to the question of slaughter. I refer to paragraph 17, which says:
Humane slaughter regulations are in force in all the countries which have agreed to the Balfour Assurances and these regulations…

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Would the right hon. Gentleman repeat that?

Mr. Godber: I am trying to be brief.

Mr. Lewis: Did the right hon. Gentleman read "enforce" or "in force"?

Mr. Godber: I read "in force". I am quoting from the report. I draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 17. If my words are unclear he will be able to read them in that paragraph. The paragraph says that the regulations are in force
in all the countries which have agreed to the Balfour Assurances and these regulations require stunning before bleeding. The regulations are based on pre-stunning by captive bolt pistol, electro-lethaler or other approved method and in the case of pigs in certain countries by CO2 gas.
That seems to cover the situation insofar as the regulations are being imposed and utilised by the Governments concerned. That is one of the points about which concern has been expressed by those who have been opposed to this trade.
I shall not lend my voice in the House to say that any country in the Community is deliberately evading the regulations. Perhaps in some countries the enforcement has been less severe than in others. There are clear references in the report to such matters. I draw attention to paragraph 77 which specifically refers to a case in France. It refers to a slaughter-man having been excluded from the abattoir for a month owing to his failure
to operate the pre-stunning equipment as prescribed.
The report refers to certain assurances that were given by the French Ministry of Agriculture as to the implementation of severe penalties if there should be any repetition of such a failure.
It seems that through the Community regulations and the directive from 1st July onwards there will be adequate power to ensure that such penalties will be implemented. In the meantime national legislation is available. I suggest one further safeguard which might be required so as to satisfy all of us. The right hon. Gentleman will be issuing export licences to individuals. It will be possible to check and take note of how this trade is undertaken and how stunning and slaughtering take place. It will be possible to rescind a licence in the same way as we did when in Government. If the Minister will give an undertaking that these matters will

be severely controlled and that licences will be withdrawn if necessary, I believe that in spite of the greyness of the area exposed by his speech we shall be able to accept his assurance. Without such an assurance I would have the same fears as many of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peart: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance now. However, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will spell it out in addition to answering other questions. I give the assurance that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.

Mr. Godber: That clears the position in my mind to a considerable extent. Firm lines have been drawn regarding transport and slaughter but that does not mean that any country involved has the right to turn a blind eye to any other malpractice that may take place. The majority of people concerned in this trade, in their own interests if for no other reason, are careful to avoid unnecessary cruelty as it harms the value of the product. Of course, I do not rest my case on that. I am reminding people in the trade that they have an interest of their own quite apart from any feeling that we must introduce safeguards against cruelty.
In spite of the slight doubts that arose during the Minister's speech I feel that the motion in the form in which it has been introduced can be accepted. It not only uses the word "now" in line 4 but line 5 includes the words "under close control". I interpret "under close control" as being close control of the issue of licences and a willingness to withdraw them in case of need.
On that basis I hope that the House will accept the motion. When we debated this matter before I felt that the House was naturally concerned, as it always is on issues of this kind, but perhaps over-concerned. At that time I asked the House to accept an amendment which would mean that it would wait until the report appeared. Had the House waited until then and had it seen the O'Brien Report I think that it would probably not have passed the motion in its original form. I believe that that would have been the position, but I never complain after being defeated in debate. On the occasion to which I am referring I was


defeated and I accepted the will of the House.

Mr. Crouch: I have listened to my right hon. Friend most carefully. Can he say that he is satisfied that if this ban is lifted now, Recommendations Nos. 7, 8 and 9—the control recommendations in the O'Brien Report—could be observed?

Mr. Godber: I cannot speak for the Government, only for myself. In the light of the assurance I have obtained from the Minister, it seems that they can be observed. Recommendation No. 7 deals with exports being allowed to slaughterhouses which have satisfied certain minimum criteria. This could be carried out because it would be known where consignments were going. Recommendation No. 8 concerns the revised certification system. There is a certification system and, provided that the trade operates it effectively, it is acceptable.
Recommendation No. 9 deals with the veterinary inspection. I hope that in replying the Secretary of State for Wales can assure us about this because it is important. Such an inspection has always been a part of this trade. The need is to ensure that a viable suggestion is implemented. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will deal with this in his reply, I will not only accept the motion but advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was concerned that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) should not mislead the House by selective quotation from paragraph 21 of the report. He will understand if I seek to correct him now so that he does not fall into the same trap. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from paragraph 21, line 14, the following words,
We do not consider that the degree of stress involved in any one sector of the export trade, nor its cumulative effect, is sufficient to justify a permanent ban.
These words must not be taken in isolation because the next sentence says,
On the other hand we believe that the issue of further export licences should continue to be suspended until acceptable and enforceable conditions can be introduced to ensure that the welfare of the animals is safeguarded with greater certainty.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that puts a different slant on the sentence he quoted.

Mr. Godber: The last thing I wished to do was to mislead. I was trying to correct the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy). I would have quoted the whole paragraph quite happily but for the fact that I felt Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye upon me. However, that further sentence is exactly the point to which I addressed the majority of my remarks—in other words, the way in which the matter should be dealt with.

Mr. Corbett: I accept that. I think that between us we may have put the matter right.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the O'Brien Report. There has been immense criticism of its judgments but this should not detract from the work done by the committee and the speed with which that work was carried out. My complaint against O'Brien is that, having done the work well, it has drawn the wrong conclusions from the evidence. I say this first because the live animal trade is of small economic significance to the United Kingdom. Paragraph 21 of the report makes this point.
Second, O'Brien calls for extra safeguards for the welfare of animals and in doing so tacitly admits the case made by organisations with which my right hon. and hon. Friends and others have been concerned for years. Attempts over the years to make the system work have failed. We have only to go back to the Balfour Assurances to see that. It was the concern of these people which led to the establishment of the O'Brien Committee. It is of some concern to me that even since the publication of the report a number of us have been receiving detailed allegations of continuing cruelty in abattoirs and lairages, particularly in France and Belgium.
My third reason for saying that O'Brien drew the wrong conclusions is that it can make no sense to spend £2 million a day on imports of all kinds from 61 countries while encouraging the export of meat grown on British farms.
My fourth reason concerns the producers. In the livestock sector producers constantly turn to the public and ask for their support in the almost monthly crises through which they pass. Yet on


this occasion they are not saying that the British housewife should come first for British food, part subsidised out of her purse and her husband's pocket. They are saying to the British housewife, "We want to make a quick buck abroad and don't you stand in our way".

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman accept from a housewife that the type of beef which is exported to the Continent is precisely the sort of beef no British housewife would choose to cook? It is much larger and coarser and very much older than the beef to which British housewives are accustomed.

Mr. Corbett: I do not totally accept that. In any event it does not dispose of the argument. I hope that not many of our beef growers are producing coarse beef—

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: It is old.

Mr. Corbett: Or old beef. That does not dispose of the argument against sending an old, barren, cow abroad on the hook rather than on the hoof.
I turn to the arguments in favour of the removal of the ban. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), who regrettably I do not see in his place—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. Is it not the case that we do not expect two right hon. Gentlemen immediately to make their speeches and then walk out? Both the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) have left the Chamber. I have never done that. I always wait to hear at least two of the following speakers. That is the rule and custom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We never know what reasons right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have for being in or out of the Chamber. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Corbett: The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that some cattle were starving. He drew attention to the fodder shortage. It has been argued elsewhere by those who want the ban lifted that unless the export of live animals is resumed hundreds of thousands of cattle

will be sentenced to death this winter. I acknowledge that there is a problem with fodder. I know that everyone concerned with farming will be glad of the voluntary help which individual farmers have been able to give through their unions.
Is it seriously suggested that the ability to export a few thousand head of cattle will solve the fodder problem? If this is what is being asserted, I would point out that I am advised that we are talking about the export of between 2 million to 3 million head of cattle in the next two or three months, whereas in the whole of 1973 the total of hoof and hook exports in headage terms was 76,000. Where are the buyers coming from for that 2 million or 3 million? It is rubbish to argue that removal of the ban will make anything but a marginal contribution to the solution of the fodder problem.
It is argued by supporters of the removal of the ban that most member States of the European Community have ratified the Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport. The O'Brien Committee concluded that the evidence was not strong enough to justify a permanent ban on welfare grounds. How much cruelty and suffering and how many allegations of cruelty and suspicion of suffering do we need before the ban is made permanent? The right hon. Member for Grantham could not answer that question. None of use can say with certainty that regulations passed by the Council of Europe or by individual member States of the European Community will be enforced to standards which satisfy our concern about animal welfare. No hon. Member is able to give that guarantee—and that includes my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.
What about the recommendation made by the Balfour Committee, and repeated by the British Veterinary Association and the O'Brien Committee, that the sensible way to deal with the trade is to change it into a carcase trade? My right hon. Friend dismissed the interim suggestions in the O'Brien Report. He felt that these matters were best dealt with by individual countries under their own veterinary safeguards. How can we be sure that the new regulations will be adopted and enforced? Do we know that in every European slaughterhouse


every regulation will be kept in every dot and comma?
These are minimum regulations. What extra safeguards are we to seek? The Minister was silent about that. How will the system be policed? If the system were easy to police, not a case would be brought in this country of cruelty to animals, but, regrettably, there are cases. Who will pay for the inspectorate? From where will the inspectors come? These are questions on which the proponents of the motion have a duty to satisfy the House.
The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire said that slaughterhouses were working flat out and could not cope. The National Farmers' Union says in a brief that the facilities for the slaughtering and handling of carcase meat for export in the United Kingdom are limited, and that existing abattoirs are overloaded. That is not so. My right hon. Friend in a written reply gave the number of export approved slaughterhouses as 75. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in a recent survey visited 347 slaughterhouses, including most of those which are export approved. It was found that 279 were working at normal capacity or under capacity.
With the support of a petition signed by 1,500 constituents which was presented to the House by my predecessor, and with the support of the Anglian Society for the Welfare of Animals, I ask the House to say "No" to the motion and to continue the ban on the export of live animals. There exist serious grounds for doubt, and I am asking that the benefit of the doubt should be given in the interests of animal welfare.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: I should like to speak mainly on the argument put by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) and the O'Brien Committee that the livestock export industry has small economic importance. If Lord O'Brien were reporting now, after the experience of the last year, he might have come to a different conclusion.
I wish to speak from the Welsh standpoint, which on this subject is different from the United Kingdom standpoint. I notice that the O'Brien Report speaks

of the United Kingdom as a nation, which is, of course, a mistake. From the standpoint of the Welsh farmers, who are utterly dependent on livestock, the export industry is extremely important. Since Lord O'Brien completed his report, our farmers have gone through a traumatic experience. Few of them have escaped heavy losses. That is because Wales is so completely dependent on livestock. Cattle and sheep account for 78·4 per cent. of all Welsh agricultural production. Cereals account for only 2·8 per cent. Wales, with only 4·9 per cent. of the United Kingdom population, produces one-ninth of the milk, one-ninth of the calves and cattle and one-quarter of the sheep and lambs produced by the United Kingdom. Therefore when the livestock industry is depressed, the Welsh farmers suffer particularly severely. Last year the industry was more depressed than it has been for 40 years—and that at a time of cruelly rising costs.
I am being pressed by farmers in my, constituency to help them to get public assistance and try to persuade the Post Office not to disconnect their telephones That experience happened to me only last week and may have happened to other hon. Members who represent areas like mine.
The public do not understand now dependent are dairy farmers on the sale of stock, whether as calves, barreners or fatstock. That trade accounts for a substantial part of the income of the dairy farmer. Many erstwhile dairy farmers are wholly dependent on this trade because they were induced by the Government to abandon milk production and to concentrate entirely on beef. Their reward has been as bitter as the waters of Mara.
All our livestock farmers—virtually all the farmers of Wales—have been pierced on all sides by the "arrows of outrageous fortune". They suffered the removal of the guaranteed price system before the intervention system could replace it. Sheep farmers found the French market closed to them more often than not, although they had the right to expect freedom of movement in the Common Market. The Government have made no obvious effort to fight for them. As these farmers sank deeper and deeper into the bog of depression, the attitude of Government and official Opposition too often


seemed to be expressed in the words of the Leader of the Opposition, who said, "Let them live off their fat". How much fat have these yeomen of Wales who have laboured such long and arduous hours? According to recent statistics, in the prosperous year of 1972 they had a total average income for the year of £1,340. There is not much fat there for them to live off.
It is bad enough when the French Government close the French market to our sheep meat—and that has often happened—but it is much harder to bear when all continental markets are closed to our livestock. That wrong is compounded by the Government dragging their feet when they should have hastened to lift the ban to help the depressed livestock industry. Little wonder in these circumstances that Welsh farmers last year, for the first time this century, resorted to unconstitutional methods.
The ban had been imposed in what might seem to some a gush of emotion, but it was imposed by those with a most laudable concern for animal welfare. The matter was quickly put in perspective by the sober and impressive report of the O'Brien Committee. Nevertheless, although the report was completed nearly a year ago, only today is the House allowed to debate it. This suggests a lack of determination on the part of the Government to do all they can to help livestock farmers.
The O'Brien Committee's findings show how exaggerated were the reports of cruelty in the livestock export trade, and in particular in the situation on the other side of the Channel which obviously is no worse than the situation on this side. The English Channel is narrower than the Irish Sea, across which a great number of cattle cross these days, and this has been going on for a number of years. So far as I know, there has been no protest against that traffic.
I was glad to hear the Minister's assurance that the new welfare regulations are already in force, and that if there has been abuse in the past there is every chance that it will be removed in future. Although the O'Brien Report regarded this trade as of small economic importance, that is a relative term, and had the Committee looked at the matter from the Welsh standpoint, I do not think it would have come to that conclusion.

Who can possibly assess the difference it would have made to the intolerably depressed price of Welsh calves and barreners last year if thousands of these animals have been siphoned off into overseas markets? One cannot discount the financial importance to the farmer of the prices fetched by the animals in overseas markets at a time when at home some cattle were selling for a few pounds and some calves for a few shillings.
There is no doubt that the livestock export trade has a greater comparative importance in Wales, which is a livestock country, than it has in England. The prices our farmers get for their calves are still heart breaking and to lift the ban would have an immediate effect of putting urgently-needed money into farmers' pockets.
In my district a business man who is engaged in this trade said that if the ban were lifted at once, he would be in business immediately. He has one customer on the Continent who would take from him 200 young calves a week—and they would be taken not for slaughtering but for fattening, which is a very important part of the business. I emphasise that animals are exported not for slaughtering only—and, of course, we are very concerned about slaughtering conditions—but also for fattening.
It is very important in the interests of farmers and others in the trade to see that there is no abuse of the system and no cruelty to animals. If exported, these calves would fetch 10 times the price they would fetch in the home market. This return has been unjustifiably denied to farmers. Farmers treat their animals well. I have been engaged in some small way in this business and I know that in Wales many cattle have a better health service than do many human beings, and that is the truth.
It is in nobody's interest to tolerate the maltreatment of animals. Farmers and others engaged in the export trade have an interest in insisting on the firmest safeguards against any kind of cruelty or maltreatment. In the serious fodder situation facing many Welsh farmers, animals will face far greater suffering at home than if they are exported before the spring.
There is a shortfall in fodder supplies of at least 20 per cent., and in Wales there are hundreds of thousands of cattle


above the number that can be adequately fed. They can neither be sold abroad nor killed humanely at home. It is far better to send them overseas than to allow them to starve on the Welsh hills.
A fine overseas trade had been built in Wales largely through the selfless pioneering work of such men as Mr. Austin Jenkins. This trade should be fostered as part of a comprehensive effort to improve the sale and marketing of meat and livestock, and I believe that for reliable and efficient marketing a meat marketing board is urgently needed. But the immediate need tonight is for the House to resolve to bring our withered overeas livestock trade back to life.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I happen to be one of the four Members of Parliament—two from each side of the House—who took the trouble to give written and oral evidence to the O'Brien Committee. I do not want to deal at length with the report since it has already been adequately covered by other hon. Members. Instead I want to deal with the motion which we are being asked to approve.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture did not satisfy me with his explanation of what the motion was intended to achieve. I do not pass any comment about my right hon. Friend's eulogy of O'Brien. Let O'Brien take all the praise he is entitled to. I hope he got well paid for the job. I assume he did, and I assume that that also applies to members of the committee. I hope they all attended the committee's meetings, but as to that I am not completely sure.
The motion refers to
the progress made in establishing international welfare safeguards".
I should like to know what progress has been made in the international welfare of animals. My right hon. Friend gave no details of progress—[HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] He gave details as to directives which are to be issued, but he never said "We have examined the situation and have ensured that lairages have been properly looked after." Nor did he say "We in this country have veterinary surgeons in abundance to go round to see that things are properly controlled." Indeed, my information is that we are short

of veterinary surgeons, that there are many sick animals and that vets are having great difficulty in dealing with the situation.
The Minister said that he had been given promises by those on the Continent as to the action they intended to take. It is already the law in France that certain things should happen, but even though many things should have been carried out on the Continent both before and after the O'Brien Report, nothing has happened.
I have two foolscap sheets of paper giving the date, time and place when the committee made visits, but it would take too long to read the whole list. If I may give just one example, on 23rd April 1970 the committee visited an abattoir at Fontainebleau in the Paris area and stated that there was nothing amiss. Well, any of us who have been in the Army know what happens when there is to be an inspection—and certainly I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture knows this from his experience. We know that when the general is on his way, out come the buckets of whitewash and all is cleaned up. We all know what happens when Her Majesty comes here to open Parliament. Everything is spick and span.
I do not blame anyone, because this is normal practice in every walk of life. When the managing director of the company goes round the company premises, one does not show him all the things that are going wrong and lead him to the places where the rubbish and refuse is kept. The place is made very presentable and all is well. I was not present when the committee made the visit, but the buckets of whitewash were probably brought out.

Mr. Hooson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is right, but what the committee did at Fontainebleau almost certainly equally took place at Shrewsbury.

Mr. Lewis: I do not understand what the hon. and learned Gentleman is getting at.

Mr. Hooson: The committee visited Shrewsbury and Fontainebleau.

Mr. Lewis: I still do not see what is the connection. The whitewash was brought out. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman endorse what I say? In fact,


only the good things were shown. The members of the committee did not even trouble to visit the lairages where the animals were kept to await slaughter. Had they done so, they would have seen that things were not so good. They never asked to see them, and they never went to see them.
Certain laws and regulations are already in force covering, for instance, the stunning methods and the fact that animals should not be cut whilst hanging up by their legs, as now happens. That happened on 23rd July 1974, on 19th July 1974 and on 21st September 1974. I have a whole page of dates. I shall give to my right hon. Friend the times and the details of where those practices take place. We do not have sufficient veterinary surgeons to carry out inspections.
The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) made a speech and promptly left the Chamber, which is a usual, regrettable practice. A Member is supposed to wait to hear at least the next two speakers in case they wish to refer to what he has said. I asked the right hon. Member whether he was referring to "in force" or "enforce". Rules and regulations are all very well, but we cannot ensure their enforcement. The rules are not now being enforced. Even if my right hon. Friend were able to say that he intended to establish international welfare safeguards and other relevant considerations, I do not have much confidence that he would alter the position.
My right hon. Friend has mentioned other countries. What other countries does he mean? Some hon. Members may think that this applies to the EEC countries. We have some say in EEC countries, but not a lot. However, shall we have any say in what goes on in the other countries? I do not understand the meaning of the term "other countries".
I am a little worried about the situation. We now have the situation where, for instance, the Welsh farmers speak on behalf of the Welsh farmers but no one seems to speak on behalf of the animals. It has been said that no hardship and no suffering is caused to the animals. In this instance my "constituents" happen to be animals. I have seen instances where great care is taken and where every aid and assistance is made available.

I have also seen the animals' wild, staring eyes even where every help and assistance is given.
On occasions I have seen unnecessary brutality. I do not like it. I do not think it is right. However, it occurs. If it happens in this country, with its better and more humane system, I do not think we should encourage the sending of animals to the Continent where we have no control over their slaughter. There is no necessity to do so. What is the objective? Why should they not be exported as carcases? Is it because there is money in it? What is the reason? Why cannot the cattle be slaughtered in this country and then sold for export?
If I discover an abattoir in this country where the animals are not being properly slaughtered, I can come to this House and "have a go" at the Minister. However, if I visit the slaughterhouses of France and Belgium and find the conditions there unsatisfactory, I cannot put a Question to my right hon. Friend. I cannot visit such places and say "I saw the animals' throats slit in front of all the other animals. I saw an animal hung up on a hook and left to bleed in front of all the other animals." He would reply "It has nothing to do with me".
I do not see why the slaughter cannot be carried out in this country, the carcases then being exported. The only reason is that it is probably more profitable.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The French say that they want live calves for rearing.

Mr. Lewis: They may well require live calves for rearing purposes. Flow-ever, in that case I should like my right hon. Friend to assure the House that those animals are being adequately treated.
The O'Brien Committee has admitted that in the past there has been unnecessary cruelty. But the export of live animals was stopped, which meant that the O'Brien Committee was not able to investigate actual cases. The committee took written and oral evidence from people who may or may not have seen slaughtering. There may be a conflict of evidence. But I cannot see why we should allow the export of live animals, even in view of the present safeguards


and attempts to ensure that cruelty does not take place. There is inevitably a certain amount of cruelty. If there is an inevitable amount of cruelty, we should see that we control it as much as possible. We can do something on this side of the Channel. We can do nothing once the animals arrive at the other side.
I am sorry that I have to disagree with the Minister. I regret that I cannot support him on this occasion, although I generally support him on most matters. Probably he will be pleased to know that, although I cannot support him, I can support the Prime Minister.

Mr. Peart: That is better.

Mr. Lewis: Who knows, I might even obtain a job as a PPS. At the very least, I ought not to be attacked and castigated as much in the future as I have been in the past.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—the greatest Prime Minister I have known in 30 years, God bless him—said at Bristol and Oxford during the last election campaign that on both economic and humanitarian grounds a Labour Government would not restart the export of live animals. Therefore, in view of the custom of collective Cabinet responsibility, I ask my right hon. Friend whether he supports the Prime Minister. I do. I do not believe, on economic or humanitarian grounds, that there is any reason or necessity for the terrible business of the export of live animals. I hope my right hon. Friend will agree and say that he will switch and become a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister.

Mr. J. Grimond: I do not leap to the defence of the Prime Minister. He is a pragmatic man. It is not true, certainly in my constituency, that we could slaughter all our animals at home. We have neither the slaughterhouses nor the slaughtermen. We must send the animals across the sea to the mainland of Britain. It is also not true—this was made clear by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans)—that keeping cattle underfed in winter pastures in the north of Scotland is necessarily being kind to them.

Mr. Lewis: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman was here when I mentioned the matter.

Mr. Grimond: I was here.

Mr. Lewis: In that case the right hon. Gentleman could not have heard my remarks to the effect that we had a chance to control the slaughter of animals in this country. I am talking about the slaughtering and transport of animals. I would attack the Secretary of State for Scotland if I heard that brutality occurred in Scotland.
The motion refers to the progress made in establishing international welfare standards. What steps have been taken? None at all. There are no steps we can take to ensure that there is no brutality abroad. We can take action only in this country.
I agree that cattle must be exported from the Scottish islands to the mainland, which might result in unkind actions which we do not like. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) is an animal lover. He can raise the matter in Parliament if he is not satisfied at the way in which animals are treated.
The motion begins by paying tribute to the work of the O'Brien Committee, and I have done that. It goes on to speak of
the progress made in establishing international welfare safeguards and of other relevant consideration".
I do not know what they are. I have not heard one vestige of proof today—and I know that it cannot be given—to the effect that if France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg or any other country does anything to which I object, I can take action.
It is for that reason that I do not intend to support the motion. There is no necessity for the export of live animals to be resumed. It is a retrograde step which the Government are proposing. I hope that this House will succeed, as it did on the last occasion, in stopping this beastly practice.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. F. A. Burden: The Minister of Agriculture was probably one of the most unhappy men in this House today when he proposed this motion. Nothing has changed from last year when he bitterly opposed these proposals.
My interest in animal welfare is well known, but I hope that I am not considered to be a fanatic. I believe that


fanaticism warps judgment and often prejudices the causes that it espouses. However, I must remind the House that the committee under the chairmanship of Lord Balfour of Burleigh was set up in 1957 because of the public disquiet and unrest about the way that British animals which were exported were being treated. I need not now go into the recommendations made by the Balfour Committee, which were followed by assurances given by overseas countries, but they confirmed that the concern was right.
There is one considerable disadvantage from which the O'Brien Committee has suffered. I must make this point very firmly, and, I hope, very fairly. The O'Brien Committee was set up on the very evening that this House decided that there must be no more licences issued in respect of cattle and pigs after those already in existence had expired. Already not one sheep was going from this country to the Continent and to those countries into which the O'Brien Committee inquired. Therefore, the committee must have been at a disadvantage in that none of those countries was receiving any sheep from this country and everyone of them knew of this trade by Parliament.
Let me refer for a moment to the Balfour Committee. I remind the House that Parliament decided that animals for slaughter should go to no country other than those countries which had subscribed to the Balfour Assurances. This must have debarred the export of those animals to any countries other than those which subscribed to the assurances and at the same time it must have debarred the export of anything other than cattle to France, because France agreed to the Balfour Assurances only in respect of cattle.
I hope that the Minister will be able to tell the House that no calves, no sheep and no cattle have gone to the Middle East, where ritual slaughter has been practised. If any have gone, it has been against the assurances given to this House in 1972 and which all Members believed were still being observed.
In referring to the Balfour Committee let rue remind the House of one other factor. The committee stated quite emphatically that the carcase trade should replace the live animal trade. It said that that must be the aim, and it pointed out that it was going, although the diffi-

culty then was the problem of refrigeration. There is no such difficulty today. There is plenty of refrigeration.
There is no doubt that there have been many infringements of the Balfour Assurances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), when Minister of Agriculture, himself brought in the ban on sheep, and he said today that the then Government had banned the export of sheep, not under pressure from this House but on evidence which they knew to be true. So there is direct and absolute evidence, admitted by my right hon. Friend today, without any pressure from this House, that there had been unacceptable cruelty to sheep—so unacceptable that, without any pressure, the Government of the day banned the trade. It is inconceivable that there were not similar infringements in the way that cattle and pigs were handled. Why should sheep alone be singled out for such treatment? I suggest that with cattle the case has also been proved beyond all reasonable doubt.
The RSPCA sent teams to the Continent to investigate. They were not composed of fanatics. They were not men without experience. They were not unqualified. Veterinary surgeons were sent. They were used to the slaughter of animals. It was not abhorrent to them. They knew that animals had to be subjected to it. On their return, they reported and submitted their evidence.
The BBC sent a team to the Continent. The team produced evidence on film. Is it suggested that that film was all phoney? The News of the World sent a team. Other investigators went. Sometimes they were subjected to indignities and had the evidence of their investigations destroyed. They were abused. I understand that the members of a BBC camera team were threatened with physical violence.
Some of those who investigated these conditions came to a Committee Room in this House where they were subjected to the strongest possible cross-examination by people with farming interests. They could not be shaken in any way. Their evidence stood up to cross-examination. I remind the House that the O'Brien Committee acknowledges this to a very considerable extent.
As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because of that evidence and that public pressure, and because of the view of


Members of this House insisting that the matter be debated, on 12th July last year we on this side had not, as we have today, a free vote but were asked by our Whips to ensure that this trade continued. Quite a number of hon. Members from this side, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who, I hope, will be called shortly, went into the Lobby with the vast majority of hon. Members from the other side of the House, and it will be very interesting to see whether the vote tonight is really free, because I believe that, if it is, the result will be the same as at that time. As a result of that debate the Minister of Agriculture undertook that there would be no more licences issued.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): Let me give immediately the assurance which the hon. Gentleman wishes. The vote on this side of the House is entirely free. I cannot speak for the other side of the House.

Mr. Burden: It is on this side, but, of course, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken has raised a very important point. It will be very interesting to see how the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister votes tonight. I have no doubt that many people will be interested.
I would like now to turn to the report of the O'Brien Committee, which is the important thing. In the report it is stated:
We do not consider that a permanent ban on the export of live animals for slaughter is justified on either welfare or economic grounds. The most effective means of safeguarding the welfare of all animals entering the livestock trade within the EEC lies in the implementation of common European welfare regulations covering both transport and slaughter conditions.
The committee went on to say:
We took the view that human beings who use other forms of life for their own end should exert themselves to ensure that they do so with humanity. Ill-treatment and cruelty should not be tolerated and stress should be minimised.
Nobody will disagree with that.
In paragraphs 22 to 32 are repeated the reports of the teams that carried out investigations. In its discussion of those allegations the committee said:
It must be said at the outset that if all"—

and I stress the word "all"—
of these allegations were substantiated they would indicate a highly disturbing state of affairs.
I would suggest that this House and all of us would accept that far fewer than "all" the allegations would need to be proven beyond doubt for us to consider that a very unsatisfactory state of affairs exists.
The committee went on to say:
While our investigations have shown that a certain number of allegations have been well founded, a number of instances have emerged where the evidence does not bear close scrutiny.
The evidence that does not bear close scrutiny is contained in two paragraphs only, paragraphs 68 and 69, and the only reference is to the evidence given by the News of the World, and to no other evidence. One must, therefore, assume that the committee accepts that the other evidence was right and cannot be questioned.
At the end of that paragraph the committee speaks of a certain abattoir that was visited. It made the point that the News of the World investigators in their report gave the names of the people who were carrying out constructional activities rather than the name of the abattoir, and said:
We have learned that deficiencies in the stunning areas at this abattoir have been remedied since our visit.
I believe the O'Brien Committee was suffering under great difficulty because of the circumstances and timing in which it was set up, but I believe it had one other very great failing in that it gave notice days, weeks and months ahead, of its intention to visit any place in particular and to question any people in particular. There was no question of anonymity. Does anyone honestly believe that clearing-up operations were not carried out between the time the announcement was made in this House and the visits of the O'Brien Committee?
I would refer to one paragraph in O'Brien that has not been mentioned and which in my view shows above all why this trade cannot be continued and why this motion must be rejected tonight. Paragraph 17 of the report states:
In Italy enervation is permitted provided that it is carried out by trained personnel


acting under the authority of the director of the abattoir.
It was surprising to me that there was no mention of what "enervation" meant, so I had inquiries made. The Ministry veterinary surgeons at Chessington seemed a little doubtful, but now I know what it means. It means that a sharp three-cornered instrument called a punctilla, a small knife with a triangular blade, is inserted into the base of the skull of the animal to sever that part of its spinal rapport responsible for the nerve centres controlling the limbs. The animal is not rendered unconscious. It is immobilised so that it cannot kick the slaughterman when he cuts its throat. It is fully conscious and it has full feeling. That is what is being practised now in Italy and applied to our cattle going there.
I have made most of the points that I would wish to make, although I would have liked to have made some others, but I submit that there is undoubted proof of cruelty to animals that are exported for slaughter and that this fact is inescapable. I do not believe that the economic grounds can outweigh the moral grounds that are against this trade. In its report the O'Brien Committee stated not once but several times that the economic arguments in favour of this trade are very marginal, that only 2 per cent. of our cattle are involved, and the committee makes the point in the final part of its report, on which I could have enlarged, but I have no doubt that one can wholly destroy the economic arguments. I know that my hon. Friend will make an important point on that in a moment.
In paragraph 96 the Committee says:
Our review of the economic arguments suggests that from the national point of view the benefits from unrestricted trade are of small significance which confirms our earlier judgment that this issue is one which should be settled on welfare considerations.
The Minister has said that if the motion is passed tonight, tomorrow the licences will start to flow again. O'Brien was specific that in no circumstances should this process start, not only until the regulations had been laid down, but until it was shown beyond all doubt that they were operating properly.
If they act as their consciences and their morality demand, I believe that hon. Members will throw out this suggestion tonight. I am convinced that many

farmers are bitterly opposed to the reintroduction of this system and that certainly the vast majority of the British people will show their resentment in no uncertain way of such an action by Parliament.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Caerwyn E. Roderick: I want to go on record in this debate, as I failed to do so in our previous debate. At that time I was a supporter of a ban on the export of live animals. On the evidence available at that time I was anxious that there should be a full investigation into the circumstances in which the animals travelled to the Continent and were slaughtered. I want to go on record now as accepting the motion. We have had what we asked for—time to think and investigate—and we have seen a report which, if it is not a 100 per cent. vindication of the trade, goes a long way towards satisfying the needs which many of us thought should be satisfied.
I am extremely concerned about cruelty to animals and about animal welfare in general. We should do everything we can to ensure that animals do not suffer. I shall warmly and gladly support the Bill to ban hare coursing and I shall be glad to see the end of fox hunting. What sometimes distresses me is the fact that some organisations and people who spend a great deal of energy trying to secure a ban on the export of live animals are not quite so active on these other two matters. I wish that they would extend their activities.

Mr. John Tomlinson: Who are they?

Mr. Roderick: One example is the RSPCA, and there are certain people who do not spend so much time in trying to ban far more cruel activities than anything connected with the transport of animals for slaughter. These activities are to be condemned also for the feelings which they arouse in human beings and which are less than civilised.
Three matters give rise to concern—the transport of the animals, the conditions under which they await slaughter, and the way in which they are slaughtered. I am by no means satisfied that we always transport animals in the best way in this


country. I have seen wagons in which animals are overcrowded. We also transport them from one end of the country to another, so distance in exporting seems to be irrelevant.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Like the London Underground.

Mr. Roderick: Yes, human beings suffer as well, but at least they have a choice.
Under ideal conditions, I should prefer a 100 per cent. carcase trade, but conditions are not ideal and this would be unrealistic to expect at present. In any case, there is a demand for animals to be exported not simply for slaughter but for breeding and fattening. We should have to declare ourselves against these objectives as well. We have imported animals for breeding and fattening. This is to the good, if we are to improve our animal stocks. So a 100 per cent. carcase trade would not be realistic.
In any case, it is incumbent upon us to make much more provision by way of suitable abattoirs and storage facilities before we go for that objective. This is a process which we should encourage our friends on the Continent to follow.
It appears from the O'Brien Report that some of our fears about practices in foreign abattoirs were unfounded and that the incidence of cruelty was exaggerated. That is not to say that some acts do not take place which are unworthy of human beings. I hope that my right hon. Friend's statement that licences will be withheld from those who do not observe the regulations will be carried out and that severe penalties will be rigorously imposed on them.
It is interesting that some people suggest that 100 per cent. observance of these regulations should be expected. They speak cynicaly, expecting a flouting of the regulations. I should like to know in what area we can expect 100 per cent. observance of regulations. For instance, there are regulations about cruelty to children. That does not mean that we have done away with it. There are regulations about various forms of crime, and we have not done away with those crimes. The regulations will not necessarily do away with cruelty. Regula-

tions about the treatment of animals in this country are regularly flouted. The regulations are first class. What we need is better policing and better investigation at all times of the circumstances in which these movements and slaughterings take place.
Coming from Wales I cannot help mentioning the fodder situation. I understand that between 800 and 1,000 farms in Wales have less than 50 per cent. of the fodder they need to see them through the winter. There are hundreds of farms where there is not food for those animals during the winter. So the animals will go hungry. To me, it is cruel to allow those animals to survive under those conditions.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: I think it is right and proper that the hon. Member should be more factual in that sentence. He ought to give us the statistics in order that we can judge the validity of his conclusion, which I suggest is wrong.

Mr. Roderick: I have given a statistic. I would have thought that 800 to 1,000 farms in Wales with less than 50 per cent. of their fodder requirements for this winter was a useful statistic that should be borne in mind. I visited farms last weekend where the stock of fodder was what it would normally be at the end of February. It is as low as that.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: The point is, would the lifting of the ban help this problem?

Mr. Roderick: I was coming to that. I do not pretend that it would solve the problem, but we are looking for a way of easing the pressure and this is one way. Certainly, keeping the ban will not help at all. We are hoping that by this means we can help. There is no shadow of doubt, as I have said, that animals will go hungry and, I emphasise again, we do not have sufficient storage and slaughterhouses. We have had tremendous pressure on our slaughterhouses this winter owing to production levels and poor prices.
I should like to mention in passing the question of production. It has been argued that there has been over-production of beef in the past couple of years. There has been a tremendous increase in


the production of beef, but no one will persuade me that we have had over-production while there is a single person hungry anywhere. There has not been over-production, and I have been glad to see beef produced in this way, but we must ensure that it is dealt with properly.
As I said earlier, with the assurance today from my right hon. Friend, I gladly support the motion, and I hope that the House will support it, too.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Unlike the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), with whose speech I very much agree, I did not vote for the imposition of a ban on the export of live animals, because at the time I thought that the so-called evidence of cruelty was probably grossly exaggerated. It seems to me that many people in this House and outside try to resile from the proposition that we are a meat-eating country and its consequences.
Let me immediately confess an interest. I myself farm, and I represent a constituency in which the major occupation is certainly livestock farming. But the raising and slaughter of animals for human consumption, and particularly the slaughtering part, are an unpleasant business altogether. I do not know how many people who have written to their Members of Parliament about the matter under debate today have ever visited a slaughterhouse in this country. I have visited slaughterhouses on many occasions and I have never yet visited a slaughterhouse in this country, or a market in this country, where I have not seen a breach of at least one of our regulations.
I thought that the approach of the O'Brien Committee was robust and sensible. It was based on welfare considerations and, although I think that the committee considerably underestimated the economic importance of the trade, nevertheless it was a welfare approach. As the committee pointed out in its report, there were even a couple of its own members who had never visited a slaughterhouse before and never seen the ghastly business that it is. It always turns me up, as it does most people, to see the handling of the animals as they go in for slaughter.
But we are a meat-eating country. We rear animals for this purpose. It may

be that the next great refinement in human behaviour will be that we dispense with this business and rely entirely on vegetables, cereals and so on. All I can say is that I think that state of affairs is centuries away. But I think that the House should not be either "pi" or hypocritical. I have been extremely dubious about the wisdom of this country joining the Common Market. Like O'Brien, however, I do not share the belief that the devil begins on the other side of the Channel, and I think that one of the most significant findings of the O'Brien Committee was that conditions in lairages and slaughterhouses on the Continent were very similar to the conditions that were found in this country.
Hon. Members have spoken today of the journeys that animals have to undertake. I do not know what the distance is from Orkney and Shetland to Aberdeen, but it is a much longer sea journey than across the English Channel. For decades live cattle have been imported into this country from the Republic of Ireland. I have never heard a suggestion in this House that abattoirs should be established in Ireland rather than transport these animals across the Irish Sea. As a country we have wanted the economic benefits of the Irish trade. The welfare authorities—I am told that the RSPCA alone spent £125,000 investigating the cross-Channel trade—have carried out investigations on the Continent. But how much concern was there by welfare associations about those sea journeys across the Irish Sea before the farming crisis this autumn?

Mr. Burden: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman recall that perhaps the most significant sentence in the circular sent out by the NFU to all Members of this House concerning this matter said that the import of Irish cattle at this time was anomalous?

Mr. Hooson: I was merely pointing out the different kind of emphasis, the different approach, which seems to have been demonstrated between the continental trade and the Irish trade.
I come now to a very important point. I was disturbed at one o'clock today in the "World at One" programme on the radio to hear this debate presented in this way: "Cruelty to animals or cruelty to farmers?" It was presented as though


cruelty to animals was inevitable and acceptable if one view were taken and cruelty to farmers was inevitable if the other view were taken. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was a gross misrepresentation of both sides of the argument. To hear that programme, one would not have thought that there had ever been an O'Brien Report. A hair-raising number of allegations were made by a veterinary surgeon as though the O'Brien Committee had never investigated any of these matters.
I want to say a word for the farmer's humanity because in my experience farmers, with very few exceptions, are greatly concerned about the welfare of animals. The farmer looks after his animals, and often many of them in a sustained way, not just cosseting one or two pets. He sustains his animals through winter and summer; he beds them, feeds them twice or three times a day in very considerable numbers, and he is naturally concerned about their welfare. People get very attached to animals and it is a matter of pride to look after them well.
In a constituency such as mine, the greatest compliment that can be paid to a man in the agricultural community, whether farmer or farmworker, is that he is a good stockman, and a good stockman is always concerned about the welfare of his animals. The suggestion made in correspondence to hon. Members from time to time that the farmer is not concerned about the welfare of his animals and that it is city dwellers and the like, who read second-hand reports of these matters, who are the ones concerned is very far from the truth.
The farming community certainly welcomes the debate in this House on this subject and it welcomed the investigation by the O'Brien Committee.
It is very important, is it not, to look at the constitution of the O'Brien Committee? I said earlier in an intervention invited by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) when he referred to various organisations that were against lifting the ban that they had already expressed a certain view. They are rather like the advocate in a court who is representing one side of the argument, the

farming interest in a way representing the other. But the O'Brien Committee was acting as a judge and we are in fact the jury, deciding whether what is set out in the O'Brien Report is acceptable to this House. There was Lord O'Brien himself; then a very distinguished lawyer, Mr. Tony Cripps; an experienced veterinary surgeon, Mr. Hignet; Miss W. Prentice, OBE; and Professor O. G. Williams, who is, I think, a respected professor of animal husbandry. It was a well-qualified committee.
The conclusion reached by the committee is contained in paragraph 119:
Few other than the trade and farming interests concerned have spoken in favour of continuing the trade. For this these interests have been subjected to much, in our opinion, unjustified abuse. It would have been all too easy for the Committee simply to have bowed to the strong emotions which have been aroused on this subject. That, at least, would have made for a popular Report. We have been more concerned, however, to seek the truth and to make proposals that are reasonable and fair. This we believe our recommendations to be.
What is the point of setting up a committee of this kind to go in to such detailed investigation and then rejecting its findings? Of course we must subject its findings to scrutiny, and no committee of this kind can say that there are not, every day, both in this country and abroad, instances of cruelty to animals, just as there are individual instances of cruelty to children. But all that the committee, or a Minister, could do would be to investigate the general conditions. That the O'Brien Committee did, and it found the conditions abroad very similar—indeed, almost identical—to what they are here.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) mentioned, for example, death by enervation in Italy. I have never seen this process, but from my inquiries I understand that the skilled operator brings upon the animal instantaneous death. That system has been used in Italy for a very long time. It happens that our tradition has been different. I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, but it is easy to criticise other countries' systems simply because they are different from ours.

Mr. Burden: It happens that I have taken expert veterinary advice today, and


that advice is that the animal is not rendered unconscious and that all that happens is that it loses control of its limbs, is fully conscious and suffers pain.

Mr. Hooson: I have inquired into it as well, and my information is different from the hon. Gentleman's. I have investigated it with veterinary surgeons.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There may be a difference of opinion on this matter, but is it not one of the regulations in Italy that the animal should be stunned? The point that the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) and I have both made is that one can go abroad into a slaughterhouse and see that animals are not stunned. Is that cruel or not?

Mr. Hooson: I do not know what the regulations in Italy are, but one can go into slaughterhouses here and see animals being slaughtered without stunning. It should not be done.
In the end what we are concerned with is whether, by allowing this trade, we are subjecting the animals to the sort of conditions abroad that they would not normally have to face in this country. The answer is "No". The O'Brien Report has shown that the conditions abroad are similar to those in this country. For example, cattle can have long journeys within this country—from the North of Scotland to the South of England is not a short journey. Again, animals brought from Wales are often taken right over to the other side of England. If they are destined for the carcase trade, they are often slaughtered in the southern counties of England.
The economic importance of this trade has been underestimated in the report. If O'Brien had to report now and not 10 months ago, he would not have said that the economic importance of the trade could virtually be disregarded. The economic importance has not been properly stated in this House. The kind of animal which is involved in this trade is usually the large barren Friesian cow. Once such animals are taken off our market and go abroad, there is a different pattern of trade here. Then the fodder which would otherwise have been consumed by these cattle is available for other animals.
The impression may have been given that starving animals in Wales would

otherwise be slaughtered for meat abroad if the ban were lifted. That is not correct. But the marginal effect in the tight situation of this trade is very important, and the economic argument is therefore very important to the farmer.
I believe that the House has no justification for carrying on with this ban, and I have been reassured by what the Minister has said. It was important to clear up the point about what is to happen between now and the date in July that he gave. The House has now been satisfied, especially after the contribution of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), on this point. The House would be going contrary to the evidence and the recommendations of an independent committee and would be acting entirely on an emotional and not a factual basis if it insisted on continuing the ban.

7.5 p.m.

Miss Janet Fookes: I disagree wholeheartedly with the motion. But at least it has the merit of clarity, if nothing else. The same cannot be said for the Minister of Agriculture's speech. I hope that the Minister who is to reply will try to clarify the extraordinarily muddled statements which the right hon. Gentleman made, both in his speech and in his subsequent intervention.
My views are plain and straightforward. I believe that there should be a permanent ban, whether it be for further fattening or for immediate slaughter. I would go further. I would also place a permanent ban on live cattle imports from Ireland, whether North or South, on welfare grounds, not on the grounds that the NFU spoke about earlier this year.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the hon. Lady referring to store cattle and not simply cattle for slaughter coming from Ireland? Would she ban that trade?

Miss Fookes: Yes. I confirm that I was referring to cattle both for immediate slaughter and for further fattening. That would be store cattle. I am also sure that there should be a tightening of the regulations within the United Kingdom itself. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) made great play of how we are not perfect in our


own country. That only makes the case stronger, because if conditions are not quite right in this country, where we have supposedly full control, what will be the position in other countries where we do not have control?
I recognise that economic arguments will always be put forward, and I bow dutifully to the great god, Moloch, now taking the modern form of economic considerations. But I regard the difficulties in which British agriculture finds itself as being due not to the ban on live exports but to major rises in the cost of feeding stuffs and the inept handling of agricultural matters by the Government. I would not regard live exports as anything but peripheral.
The O'Brien Report stated that only 2 per cent. of total United Kingdom livestock production was involved when exports were allowed. Indeed carcase meat exports have been rising over the years, and in the peak year for live exports—1972—no less than 79 per cent. of the value of the cattle export trade was in carcase meat. Therefore, we can detect a steady and, to me, encouraging trend already taking place towards the export of carcase meat. I believe that that is to be encouraged and not discouraged.
One interesting comment on the present situation comes from a well-informed commentator. I quote for the sake of accuracy:
A few cargoes of Belgium-bound cows and heavy steers will cause scarcely an eddy in the flood-stream of stock pouring through United Kingdom slaughterhouses. And there will be a little more than a few ounces per head of precious hay to put before the cattle that remain on our farms. The only way to avert tragedy in the livestock areas of the west is to import more feed, and to see that farmers have the cash to pay for it.
I agree with the observation. Interestingly, it comes from "The Editor's diary" in a recent issue of the Farmers Weekly.
Again, looking at live exports from the Republic of Ireland, where there is no ban, some interesting figures emerge. In the peak year, 1972, there were 100,000 live exports, whereas in the first 10 months of this year there were only 15,000. I obtained these figures from the Irish Livestock and Meat Board. That does not suggest to me that there is a vast market

awaiting our animals if that is the position in a country not under any ban.
In any event, I believe that the previous arguments used in favour of a live trade have now been reversed by a somewhat odd quirk of fate. We were often told about the dearth of export-approved slaughterhouses. We now learn, from Ministry statistics, that there are no fewer than 75 of these slaughterhouses. What is more, there appear to be some new EEC regulations. I am not quite clear whether they were mentioned  the Minister's muddled speech, but no doubt they can be clarified. I understand that from July 1974 there could be no movement of cattle through markets and then exported unless they were approved markets. From a recent parliamentary answer I received, I understand that out of 1,631 markets in the United Kingdom only four are approved for this type of trade. Therefore, I ask the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture what effect this would have if the ban were lifted.
Economic arguments in support of my view can be adduced from a very different source—the British Veterinary Association. The association estimates that stress through travelling can cause a loss of weight of between 3 per cent. and 7 per cent. depending on the amount of stress that is caused. In evidence to the O'Brien Committee the association added that bruising of animals in transit, which is not uncommon even in the United Kingdom, can mean a loss of between 9 lb. and 20 lb. of meat. Adding the two together, one can see the economic arguments for not allowing animals to go on long journeys.

Mr. Winterton: Or not looking after them.

Miss Fookes: Yes. Unfortunately, those who look after animals in transit may not be as interested as others would wish. It is not farmers who look after animals in transit, but other people who have a short-term interest in them. I am thinking of lorry drivers, people handling animals as they go on and off ships, and others. What does it matter to them whether the animals lose weight in transit? They have no economic interest either way.
I turn now to the welfare considerations being adduced in favour of resuming this


trade. We are given harrowing pictures of thousands of animals starving, shortage of fodder and so on. I do not suggest that the fodder situation is anything but difficult. We are fortunate in having a mild winter. That has made the situation slightly better than it would otherwise have been. In my view, to allow the export of these animals to try to cure the situation is not the right solution. The humane thing is to slaughter them if we cannot feed them.
I can hear breathings behind me. I think I know where they are coming from—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman). It is interesting that the RSPCA, which has carried out a recent survey by approaching a number of slaghterhouses—347 in fact—now says that 279 are working at or under normal capacity and the other 68 are working to capacity. It matters not a whit for this purpose, if humane slaughter is the reason for animals being sent there whether they are export-approved slaughterhouses or not, because I gather that lairage facilities are considered satisfactory and that there is food and water for the animals if they have to wait.
Slaughtering figures bear out what I have said. I have taken the figures from the official statistics so that I shall not be accused of drawing upon some organisation which cannot be trusted to give the right figures. These figures come from the Ministry of Agriculture, so presumably they cannot be wrong. I quote them for what they are worth. There is a very definite downward trend from October to December in both cattle and calves. For example, calves have gone down from 73,000 in October to 42,500 in December.

Mr. Tomlinson: Tell us why there were 73,000 in October.

Miss Fookes: That is not to the point. The point I am trying to make is that there is not now the pressure on the slaughterhouses that there was. Therefore, the argument for opening up the export trade on the ground that this is the lesser evil for the cattle cannot be sustained. Furthermore, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the worst pictures that have been painted, I still maintain that the time scale is the all-important factor.
The difficulties facing British agriculture at the moment are, we hope, temporary. If we open up the live export trade again, it will presumably be for an indefinite period. Therefore, we shall be subjecting our animals to what I regard as unacceptable hardship, and possibly cruelty, for an unlimited time to deal with a temporary situation this winter.
I come now to what I regard as the heart of the matter—the evidence of cruelty to and hardship suffered by animals on their journeys and at the point of slaughter. One of the most blatant shortcomings of the O'Brien Committee is its tendency to underestimate the independent evidence which came before it and to overestimate the value of its own investigations, which, as we can see if we look closely, were very limited indeed.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery suggested that the bodies which made those investigations had a vested interest in finding something wrong and that, therefore, their conclusions were not to be trusted. I suggest that it is the other way around. It was because they found things to worry about that they went on with their investigations and reached their conclusions.
Looking at the list of bodies concerned and the assignments that they each undertook in following animals across and to the slaughtering places, the weight of evidence is such that it cannot be disregarded. The evidence comes from not only the RSPCA but the Dartmoor Livestock Protection Society, which did a great deal of first-hand investigation, the International Society for the Protection of Animals and the Council of Justice to Animals and Humane Slaughter Association which also did some firsthand work. There were also the BBC and the News of the World teams, plus a number of individuals whom it would, perhaps, be invidious to mention, who did this work for themselves.
The O'Brien Committee gives a grudging admission to the work of those people, and it admits that some at least of the allegations made were correct, but when the committee tries to pour cold water on them it is interesting to see what it picks on. As has been mentioned, one organisation got the name of an abattoir slightly wrong. In paragraph 68 the committee also mentioned indignantly that one consignment of cattle about


which complaints were made were not British cattle at all but were Irish cattle. Apparently they do not count. Does it matter one iota, for the sake of the animals, whether the country of origin was Britain or Ireland? The point was that they were being badly treated. Are hon. Members about to intervene and tell me that there were two different sets of standards employed by the abattoir workers, one for Irish cattle and one for British, and that they could distinguish between them?

Mr. Hooson: In fairness to O'Brien, the paragraph to which the hon. Lady has referred deals not with the treatment of animals but with transportation, and it says that they were being transported a distance in excess of what was recommended under the Balfour Assurances. The Irish did not subscribe to the Balfour Assurances.

Miss Fookes: The point I was making—and that intervention makes no difference to it—is that there was ill treatment, and the only fault that the O'Brien Committee could find was that they were Irish cattle which were being treated badly and not British, so presumably it did not matter.
If one looks closely at the investigations made by the committee itself one finds them woefully inadequate. I do not believe that it was right for the committee to visit various places having given notice that it was going. The only way to make proper investigations was to go incognito. For whatever reasons, the committee did not do so. What is more, the committee was limited in its direct investigations. It undertook one sea voyage, as I understand it, and on the basis of that one voyage it felt qualified to deal with the whole subject. It made visits to five continental slaughterhouses. I rather get the impression that the committee followed one consignment. I looked in vain in the annex to the report for a list of dates when it followed various consignments of cattle.
Therefore, I do not believe that it conducted its investigations with the thoroughness I would wish. I am not prepared to give weight to the committee's particular conclusions in the absence of what I would regard as proper investigations. I believe that if the committee had been conducting, say, a series of medical experiments, and if it placed its

conclusions before a body of learned fellows on the basis of the amount of work that it had done, it would be laughed out of court.
Even if we disregard the evidence before O'Brien, there are still gravely disquieting allegations which have been coming forward since that was given. I refer to the investigations in France of the welfare society, Oeuvre d'Assistance aux Bêtes d'Abattoirs, which visited no less than 14 abattoirs during this year. Its allegations make frightening reading.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I think that the hon. Lady has slipped up. She said that the visits were made this year. I think that she meant last year.

Miss Fookes: I hope that I shall be forgiven for that grave error. I meant 1974.
For example, the society visited the abattoir at Flers, in Normandy, and said:
This place has been the subject of numerous complaints about the brutal handling and infringements of legislation since 1971. It is now found that cattle destined for sausage manufacture are left without water and food in an outdoor enclosure which serves as a lairage. Usually they remain there from Friday until Monday, Tuesday, or even Wednesday, before slaughter.
The society adds:
In France, this deprivation of water is standard practice for beasts known as 'sausages', the aim being for the manufacturers to have the meat as dry as possible.
As we know, the abattoir at Fontainebleau, which the O'Brien Committee visited and which was export-approved and under veterinary supervision, has also been found, by this particular organisation, guilty of various appalling practices, including not stunning before killing.
Whatever EEC regulations are put forward—and I welcome these—will not change the situation overnight. It will probably take years before they can be fully enforced. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery has so kindly pointed out, in this country things are not always as well as they might be. Therefore, what guarantee do we have in other countries as well? As I understand it, the so-called safeguards which the O'Brien Committee proposes are not being accepted by the Government because they do not regard them as practical. That, at least, is some consolation to those of us who thought they were woefully inadequate.
There is one point where no EEC regulations will be of any use whatever—the sea crossings. I noted with interest that the O'Brien Committee suggested that the masters of ships should still be the judges of whether it would be fair and right for cattle to be allowed to be transported. I have lived most of my life within sight and sound of the English Channel. I know on just how many days every year it is in a pretty choppy condition. What is even worse is that many of the cattle which would be exported would not be going on a short English Channel crossing. In many cases they would be going across part of the North Sea. I have already mentioned my utter disapproval of the transportation of cattle across the Irish Sea. No EEC regulation, even if it seeks to emulate King Canute, will make any difference to the power of the waves.
On this argument alone it is wholly unfair and unkind to cattle that they should be subjected to this stress. Indeed, the RSPCA, when watching the imports of cattle that were so unpopular with the Welsh farmers, said that it had its inspectors present day and night, when that crisis was brewing, and that cattle were crossing in gale force winds. So much for the discretion of the masters of ships. It is quite clear to anyone that in practice they will try to get the cattle over come what may.

Mr. David James: Has my hon. Friend taken account of the effect of modern ships' stabilisers? Is she aware of the fact that cattle are brought in from the Inner and Outer Hebrides all the year round without any of these complaints being raised?

Miss Fookes: I have very little knowledge of the position in the Inner and Outer Hebrides. I said earlier that I thought that we ought to be looking again at our regulations within the United Kingdom. Even with the stabilising effect, I do not accept that one can cut out completely the stress on animals. I have not noticed any great difference where human beings are concerned. I also notice that although some ships are supposed to have stabilisers for the comfort of passengers, half of the time the stabilisers are not used because they would slow down the ships. I should think that that would be true also of animal transportation.
Let me turn to the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It may be too long in the view of other hon. Members. I very rarely take the time of the House to make a speech and when I do I hope to be allowed a little latitude. Perhaps if I were making points that were more popular with some of my colleagues they would not find my speech so long.
Let me turn to the various people who would have to implement these recommendations. We know that there is already a great shortage in the State Veterinary Service. This is causing considerable worry. We know that a vast amount of the welfare work that ought also to be undertaken is not being done. That does not give me any great hope for the future. The view of the British Veterinary Association, which has been very much underestimated—indeed, ignored by the O'Brien Committee—is very much worth quoting and following. It believes as a principle that slaughter should take place as close to the point of production as is possible. With that view I fully agree. It seems to me strange that when a body of professional people of this standing makes such a recommendation it should be set aside. The O'Brien Committee says that it does not regard the length of journeys as being of any great importance or the cause of undue stress. Is it setting itself up as having greater professional expertise than the whole of the British Veterinary Association?
My conclusion—and I am sure that those who disagree with me will be glad to know that I am concluding—is that the carcase trade should continue to replace the live export trade. That is perfectly possible and feasible. It would be a retrograde step if we were now to lift the ban for an indefinite period. This House has at times risen to the occasion and shown great compassion in the course of its long history. It has made decisions which are greater than the sum of the erring mortals who make it up at any one time. I would hope that we would add to that list of compassionate decisions by making one tonight. I want the House to say that for all time there should be a complete ban on live animal exports, and that we should show a sense of responsibility towards them, just as much as we should to our fellow human beings.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a most difficult debate to control while being fair to each point of view. I propose to call the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who will make a speech for the motion. I shall then call the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) to speak against it. The Chair will try to keep a balance, but it would be helped by shorter speeches.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Daniel Awdry: I shall try to follow your advice, Mr. Speaker, and make a brief speech. This is a debate of great importance and clearly feelings run high on both sides of the argument. I have attended the whole of the debate. Those who are against the motion have made long speeches, but perhaps they are entitled to do so since they clearly feel very strongly about it.
I begin with two general points. First, the background to the debate is the simple fact that the livestock industry is in deep trouble. My many meetings with my farmers over the past 12 months make this abundantly clear. There is an acute shortage of hay. Irish store cattle continue to come into the country in large numbers and the undoubted effect of the ban means that some profitable export orders are being turned away. In addition to this fact, extra cattle have to be fed, which exacerbates the fodder situation. These are indisputable facts. My farmers, therefore, along with many others, are watching the vote tonight with deep and genuine anxiety.
My second general point is my belief that Parliament should support the recommendations of an independent committee set up by a Minister, which has completed the most extensive inquiries with scrupulous fairness and care over many months. We must think about this carefully. It would make a nonsense of our system if at the end of the day parliamentarians, who have not had the same opportunities of studying all the facts, were not to accept the findings of the committee. If they are going to attack the findings, which really means attacking the fairness and integrity of the committee, they must say so.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend must be fair about this. When he refers to taking

note of what the O'Brien Committee says, he should accept that the committee makes the specific point that this trade should in no circumstances be restarted until the safeguards are provided and have been proven to exist.

Mr. Awdry: My point is that some hon. Members have simply rejected the committee's findings. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) said that she could not go along with those findings. That makes a nonsense of the situation. I believe that if a Minister sets up a committee and it takes evidence from many parties, parliamentarians should accept that committee's conclusions.
There was genuine concern on the part of the public that animals were suffering both in transit and at the place of slaughter, and it was therefore obviously right that an independent committee should be asked to review the whole of the export trade of live animals. The committee received a great deal of evidence, both oral and written. One hon. Member has told us that he gave evidence. The committee visited markets and slaughterhouses at home and abroad. It even accompanied the animals on their journeys by sea and air. It therefore obviously took a great deal of trouble in its investigations. We have to study the report calmly and without emotion, and that is difficult because the subject has been the cause of a lot of emotion. I am convinced that at the end of the day we should support the Minister and the committee with our vote.
I am glad that the committee attached overriding importance to the welfare aspect of the trade. I began by referring to the state of the livestock industry, but that is only a secondary consideration. The overriding consideration which we should all have in mind is that of welfare. The public expect us to put welfare considerations first, and I seek to make my case on that basis. There are two main areas of criticism of the trade—first, the transport conditions across the Channel and on the Continent, and, secondly, conditions in the slaughterhouses on the Continent.
The committee analysed both those matters with great care and in considerable detail. It went to a number of markets in the United Kingdom, including Banbury and Shrewsbury. It was


impressed by the good conditions of the animals that had travelled long distances. In my constituency at Chippenham there is a large market which I often visit. Every week animals are brought hundreds of miles to it, coming from Scotland and the North of England. The animals do not suffer through travelling these long journeys and people do not complain about the welfare aspect. Therefore I agree with the committee that the argument about distance is not sufficient in itself to justify a permanent ban.
Sea travel is another point of concern. The committee travelled with animals over the sea in rough weather and, if I may answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake, it was convinced that the animals were not subjected to an unreasonable level of stress. It found that the stress was less than that experienced in travel by road. I am convinced that the complaints about travel conditions have not been justified.
I wish to deal with the question of slaughterhouses. None of us likes this horrible process, but it is necessary if we are to continue to eat meat and no one has suggested that we should stop eating meat. The committee studied conditions in the Netherlands, Belgium and France. No allegations have been made against the Netherlands, but there have been failures in Belgium and France, although these have been dealt with. It would be surprising if there were not unsatisfactory conditions in some slaughterhouses in Europe. There are many conditions in this country as well as abroad that are not perfect. Both France and Belgium operate their slaughterhouses under careful veterinary supervision, and I was glad that the committee recommended that future exports should be permitted only to slaughterhouses which satisfied certain specified criteria. In spite of all the criticism, therefore, I am persuaded that a case has not been made out to maintain a permanent ban on the export of live animals for slaughter.
I have been a Member of this House for about 12 years and I recognise the immensely strong feelings which exist among our constituents about the welfare and kind treatment of animals. I am sometimes astonished that I receive more letters on the treatment and care of animals than on almost any other subject,

in spite of all the terrible troubles going on outside the country and within it. That is to be welcomed, because it shows that we are a kind, sympathetic and decent nation. It is right that hon. Members should receive letters and documents from many organisations on animal welfare, and that we should read them thoroughly, as we all do.
It is our duty to see that animals are properly cared for. Equally, I am certain that the farmers in my agricultural constituency have a deep, genuine sympathy and understanding for animals. They would wish to have no part in any cruel or uncaring process. I am sure that the setting up of the committee, the preparation of its report, the earlier debate and this debate will all help to ensure that unnecessary suffering is avoided.
I have thought deeply about this matter. I trust that at the end of the debate the House will give the Minister support for what I believe to be an absolutely right decision.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: Whatever the views of individual hon. Members, we would all agree that there has been no lack of information supplied to hon. Members over the past several weeks on both sides of the argument. We have in conflict in the debate two of the most powerful lobbies in the country—the farmers' lobby and the animal lovers' lobby. I am not an ardent supporter of either. We have before us the O'Brien Report, which is, as far as is possible in this matter, impartial and objective. I have tried to read everything that has come my way from both sides.
We had the rare event last week of the Labour Members in Fife meeting the representatives of the National Farmers' Union, when at least six papers were read out to us by six farmers. Those papers were on various problems of the farming industry, but, significantly, not one of them was devoted to the topic we are debating. There were papers on cereals, potatoes, milk, the capital transfer tax and related legal matters. But it was only in the subsequent discussion that this question was raised, and then only to the extent that the farmers pleaded with us to support the NFU in seeking the lifting of the ban on the export of live cattle. They said that if we could not do that we might suggest as a compromise a


temporary lifting of the ban. I thought that that was a genuinely expressed view, but the thin end of a wedge, and so I reject it.
Therefore, I am forced to consider whether it is desirable on economic grounds and/or humane grounds to ban the export of live animals or to allow it to resume. I have read the report. I tell the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry), who spoke very reasonably, that it is a peculiar constitutional doctrine that the House must automatically accept the findings of any report, however distinguished. The purpose of the House is not to do that but to examine the report impartially. We are all laymen and lay women, and we have a degree of common sense which is sometimes more valuable than the opinion of experts. I am not saying that the committee did not do the best job it could within the limits of its resources and its time. I have no criticism on those grounds, but I want to make one or two comments.
First, little is said about exports of animals to places outside the EEC. Secondly, the committee did not go into the cruelty involved in ritual slaughter. It said that that was outside its terms of reference. Thirdly, the committee admitted grave deficiencies in the control arrangements designed to safeguard animal welfare, especially where animals are re-exported. We read this in paragraph 61. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) referred to paragraph 17, mentioning the method of enervation used in Italy.
We must accept one or two basic principles. The first is a simple one, put forward by several hon. Members, that as long as man eats beast there will be cruelty, just as there will be cruelty to children as long as human beings produce children. Hon. Members must take such measures as we think desirable to minimise that cruelty.
That being so, slaughter must be carried out at the nearest possible point to production, and it must be carried out humanely. That means that a country such as ours must produce as much of its own meat as possible. We must then make sure that the animals are slaughtered under rules produced by the House, enforced by inspectors under the control of the relevant Minister. We

must see that there is a minimum of transport, whether by road, sea or air.
So long as the country exports live animals, we cannot enforce our regulations in respect of those animals once they reach other countries. It is true that in an organisation such as the EEC there is some measure of control, because there will be common practices throughout the Community. But I have one or two pieces of information about abattoirs outside Europe, where I suspect some of the animals will end up.
If the trade is allowed to resume, many animals will almost certainly end up in Algeria, Tunisia and perhaps Egypt. That is the fear of some hon. Members and of other people who have studied the problem. I do not pretend to be an expert in these matters, but I have a report from an eminent veterinary surgeon who saw an abattoir in Cairo. That abattoir may be acceptable to the Egyptians, but the report shows it to be disgusting and appalling by our standards. As has been said in the debate, the practices in Italy may be acceptable to the Italians but would not be acceptable to us. I do not understand how the committee or the Government can say that we can control events once the cattle go from these shores. I cannot be satisfied on that point.
I understand the economic arguments of the farmers, and I sympathise with them, but the farmers are not unanimous on the subject. I quote a Mr. McCall-Smith who is a sheep and cattle producer in Scotland. In his presidential address to the Scottish Peat and Land Development Association just before Christmas, he said:
People talk about a surplus of beef. I say there is no surplus of prime beef, it has attracted prices of £22 to £25 per cwt throughout this year ".
That was 1974. He continued:
but there is a vast surplus of the sort of beef that people do not want.
That is axiomatic. If people do not want it, there will probably be a surplus. Mr. McCall-Smith then said:
Lifting the ban on live animal exports is not the solution to the problem.
The report of his speech continues:
there was no excuse for exporting frightened animals to a virtually nknowun fate overseas.


Public money had been used to produce these animals, for example, a £18 calf subsidy, and they should be sold on the home market.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The hon. Gentleman has just quoted a statement that the average price for best beef in 1974 was in the region of £20 to £25 per cwt. Let me tell the House that the price of beef in 1974 went as low as £12 or £14 per cwt. The average price for the few months at the end of the year was very low indeed, and £10 per cwt. less than the hon. Gentleman quoted.

Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman has an unfair advantage over me. He knows about these matters and I do not. I am quoting an expert who is probably more expert than the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hamish Watt: rose—

Mr. Hamilton: No, I must get on. Mr. McCall-Smith said:
no stockman worth the name would want his animals sent to some country whose animal welfare assurances were not worth the paper they were written on.
That is my view.
I greatly sympathise with the farmers in their present predicament. I do not think it is a strong argument to say that this issue will have only a marginal effect on them. To many farmers at the margin it could make the difference between survival and non-survival. All I am saying is that as a layman, and as one concerned with the welfare of animals who cannot speak for themselves, I believe that animals should be defended by us and that on an occasion such as this Members should take a non-party and objective view.
Faced with all the conflicting evidence from the pressure groups, which are doing all they can to further their own interests as they see them, and in trying to further the national interest, I think that on balance I must come down on the side of the animal lovers. At the same time, I hope that no charge will be made that the NFU is a hard-bitten, tight-fisted and tightly-knit group of politically motivated men. I do not accept that. Nor do I accept that the animal lovers are wishy-washy sentimentalists. I hope I shall not be accused of taking either standpoint.
I have tried to look at the matter as objectively as I can. The Government's policy must be to protect the farmers by measures other than this. If the future of the farming industry has to depend on a trade of this sort, it had better go to the wall. I do not believe that it is so dependent. I think that the Government should have other measures to put into effect to produce a solution to what I hope and believe is a temporary problem facing the farmers and the agricultural industry.

7.54 p.m.

Mr. Marcus Kimball: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) all add to the great desire to see the expansion of the carcase trade in this country. But none of them remembered that the O'Brien Committee, like the Balfour Committee, considered this matter carefully. The trouble with the expansion of the carcase trade is the lack of suitable transport and the technical problems involved in ensuring that the carcases reach distant markets as fresh meat. The demand from the Continent is for fresh meat. On the Continent there is severe consumer resistance to any expansion in the chilled and frozen meat trade.
When we debated this matter on 12th July 1973 the House was asking for suspension of the licences for the export of live animals for slaughter overseas. If the Minister's advice is accepted tonight under present conditions, the bulk of the trade that we shall see developed, as hon. Members from Wales have already said, will be for store cattle for fattening on the Continent.
I do not think that the House has appreciated the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake asked why we cannot take fodder to the starving animals. The price of bad hay in Lincoln market last week was £57 a ton. The price of good hay was nearly £90 per ton. That is the extent of the problem.
It is appropriate that it is the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who is commending the lifting of this ban. I do not believe that sufficient tribute has been paid to him for the part that he


has played over the years in animal welfare, both in his handling of the foot and mouth outbreak and in his dealings with the Brambell Committee. That fact was recognised by the veterinary profession in 1969. It gave the right hon. Gentleman the highest honour that can be awarded to any non-veterinarian when it made him an honorary Associate of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. Like most other people, he would do everything possible to avoid cruelty.
The question is whether by shipping cattle, sheep and pigs to the Continent we are inflicting on them greater suffering and stress than that which they would normally suffer in movements in this country. The largest part of the trade goes from Lincolnshire, from Boston Docks. The cattle go in air-conditioned boats in blocks of nine or four. They are sealed off so that they cannot be rolled and shaken about. They go in conditions which were found by the O'Brien Committee in paragraph 47 to be better and to inflict far less stress on animals than transport conditions in this country.
The House must face the fact that in the life of any beast in Britain there are three moves. They move from breeding area to livestock rearing, from rearing to fattening and from fattening to slaughter. My hon. Friend the Member for Drake showed her lack of knowledge on this subject—I do not doubt her sincerity—when she talked about bad handling in the cattle transport industry. The first thing that a farmer would do would be to change his transporter if his sheep arrived with pneumonia or other signs of stress and disease. The people who handle the animals take the greatest possible care. They want to continue in the trade and they give the farmers a very good service. I think that the O'Brien Committee is right when it concludes that inflicting a Channel crossing on our livestock does not induce greater stress than that which is induced in transport within this country.
I believe that the Minister has given us an adequate assurance about the progress that has been made in Europe. We have humane slaughter regulations which have been accepted by the EEC countries. We have humane transport regulations which will be law by the beginning of

July in the EEC countries. That meets one of the main worries of the O'Brien Committee and makes it clear that the House would be right in accepting the Minister's advice and finding it unnecessary to consider the interim regulations.
We are all grateful for the O'Brien Committee's attitude during this investigation. It adopted an attitude of humanity and objectivity. I hope that that attitude will be followed by the House tonight. The committee found that there was a strong emotional response to stop this traffic from people who had no practical knowledge of the trade. The report lists in paragraphs 68 to 73 the allegations that have been made. There was the so-called BBC film which spoke of "black faces at dawn and white faces in the broken-down lorry on the Alps." I could list many more examples, but I will not take up the time of the House. This merely illustrates the difficulty of private investigation.
The House should be aware that over the years the various animal welfare societies have used the stunt of private investigation as a way of raising funds from a public that has always been concerned about animal welfare. The case has not been proved. I hope that the House will allow this trade to reopen. It will put a bottom in the market for our store cattle. It takes two to make a price at a public auction, and I want to see the foreign buyers back in our auction markets. We have the EEC assurances. The resumption of the trade is important to the livestock industry. The reason for its suspension no longer applies.

8.2 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: May I refer the hon. Member for Gains-borough (Mr. Kimball) to paragraph 94 of the O'Brien Report? It states:
It has been suggested … that the continental housewife prefers to buy fresh, home-killed meat rather than chilled imports … we do not find any of these arguments particularly convincing.
That answers one of the hon. Gentleman's earlier remarks.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) regarding the factual strength of the report. The general impression one gets from reading the report is of the cursory manner with which the committee dealt with the representations of the animal welfare


organisations and the subjective conclusions it reached. All too frequently it seems to whitewash existing practices.
For instance, paragraph 76 deals with the European practice of slaughtering animals within the sight of one another. The report states that
although it might be argued that for one animal to watch another being stunned and slaughtered must cause alarm and stress, our observations have convinced us that this is not the case.
That is a glib conclusion. How can the committee, with so little experience of slaughtering—and I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) were present—speak with such conviction, even arrogance? Has Lord O'Brien developed extra-sensory perception which enables him to communicate with animals? His record shows that he cannot even communicate with people. If he has developed this great quality he should tell zoologists how he managed it, because it will be one of the great discoveries in biological science in the twentieth century.
In paragraph 86 O'Brien deals with the opposition of the British Veterinary Association—and since we are looking for qualifications this is a body which has them—which argues that the level of stress is higher in the live export trade than in the domestic trade, especially when the animals are for immediate slaughter. O'Brien rejects this argument on the grounds that it would
involve accepting human powers of appreciation which we do not believe animals such as cattle, sheep or pigs to have.
How does he know? Surely we must pay more respect to the view of a professional body like the BVA. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery asked how many of us were familiar with slaughterhouses. I am a butcher's son. Before we had sane regulations for slaughterhouses in this country I visited slaughterhouses frequently. My impression from seeing these animals much more often than the O'Brien Committee did was that they are apprehensive, that they are scared out of their lives. I have known slaughtermen who have told me that because of the appealing look in the eyes of a pet lamb they could not kill it.
The O'Brien Report whitewashes many issues. It abounds in complacency. For example, paragraph 77 states that the

French Government admit that the law is infringed. So much for the assurances which we are asked to accept about Common Market regulations. The French Government admit that the law is infringed and that a substantial proportion of slaughtering is carried out without the benefit of pre-stunning. O'Brien seems to be satisfied because one slaughterman wat suspended for a month. I quote the O'Brien Report again since its literary quality has been appreciated:
We were given the strongest assurances by the French Ministry of Agriculture that further severe penalties would be imposed if there should be any repetition of this failure.
French slaughtermen must be shaking in their boots and thinking about giving up the profession. Can one month's suspension be called a severe penalty?
In paragraph 70 the committee accepts that photographic evidence indicates that livestock transporters have been driven at excessive speed but indulgently concludes that the drivers did not know what their cargo was. I have seen transporters in this country pass me on the road when they should not have done so. I was aware of the contents of the transporters. I can only say that if the drivers did not know what the contents were it was because the animals had already been stunned by being bashed around. The committee believes the drivers. Millions would not.
Paragraph 49 shows a similar complacency. It says:
As livestock are a valuable commodity, we consider that it would be unrealistic to assume that they would be deliberately put at risk through transport in inadequate or ill-fitted vessels.
Similar glib arguments were used in defence of the slave trade. We know that live creatures packed tightly together may bring higher economic returns, even counting the losses which this packing causes.
The report admits many abuses such as the treatment of blind and lame animals, the export of horned and recently dehorned cattle, the transport of animals over excessive distances and the re-export of animals, especially sheep.
It also admits that control arrangements which were intended to safeguard the welfare of animals being exported proved seriously deficient. It emphasises the


need for stronger arrangements and makes good suggestions for the methods to be used, especially the appointment of inspectors. The Minister's speech was very weak on this because he was vague about whether we are to introduce a full and satisfactory inspection. This would be more effective than new EEC regulations. The Minister was not very reassuring on this question of control. Many of us feel that loopholes will be found as before, that regulations will be ignored, as before. A ban on the trade is the only effective measure which would protect our defenceless animals which depend entirely upon us for their protection.
Paragraph 21 states that the trade
is of small economic significance to the United Kingdom as a whole.
Some hon. Members have attributed to this the difficulty in livestock farming, but, as has been demonstrated by several hon. Members, that is not so. It is a relatively unimportant part of the British trade in meat products.
Paragraph 96 states that
we nevertheless welcome the growing trend towards carcase meat exports which brings us nearer to the Council of Europe ideal.
There is no reason why in our compassion for animals we should not go a long way towards achieving that ideal. Why, therefore, revive the live export trade? As it is dying fairly quickly, why go through all the motions of rescinding the ban on the export trade and bringing in new regulations? We should stop it now. It is of relatively little economic significance.
Some hon. Members who represent Welsh constituencies pretended that the trade was more important to Wales than it was to other parts of the United Kingdom, but I think that they were making constituency points. The hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) said that the traffic in livestock exports was chiefly of low quality. I rarely agree with her, but on this occasion the anti-ban lobby agrees with her. If that is so, I do not see the relevance of the Welsh livestock trade. If the Welsh Nationalists and Welsh Liberals do not defend the high quality of Welsh livestock I will do so myself. Welsh livestock more readily finds a market in England than most. No longer do Welshmen steal English-

men's cattle. So they could readily find a market in England.
It is stupid to revive the live export trade. Why not hasten its end by keeping the ban? It is the only way to ensure the welfare of animals which have suffered so much in the past.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must declare an interest. I am a farmer and I have had the privilege of looking after livestock for many years.
I refute any allegation that farmers generally are cruel. That just is not true. They care a great deal for their animals and, from an economic and practical point of view, if animals are not cared for they do not come to maturity. Today, many pigs are better housed than are human beings. I know of sows with underfloor heating and regular food which are better housed than grandma and grandpa. Let us have no nonsense about animals not being properly cared for by farmers.
Over the years I have not changed my views. I would never condone or advocate a trade in livestock which I knew to be inhumane. Having once had the privilege of being a junior Agriculture Minister, I know the work that is done to protect animals which are exported. I pay tribute to Ministry veterinary personnel and civil servants in this section of the Ministry. They have sought to ensure that everything is done to prevent any form of cruelty, and I believe that that policy will continue in the future.
I want to see the export of livestock on a deadweight basis. That has always been my aim and it is my aim now. That would be better for the farmers and for the maintenance of employment, but that is not possible at present because there are not enough export-licensed slaughterhouses. Till there are enough we cannot prevent the export of live animals. We must move towards a deadweight basis, and I hope that the Minister will agree that in the long run that is the best method.
I accept the O'Brien Report and the recommendation that for the time being it is right to export live animals, but only to countries which have accepted and are seen to carry out the Balfour Assurances and the regulations. I hope that the Minister will refuse licences if


there are any abuses. I should like a system of tagging so that the animals can be checked. If the animals are not tagged the exporter's licence should be taken away and he should not be allowed to export again. I hope that we shall have a tough policy.
We must work towards humane slaughter in the European Community and towards methods which are comparable with our own. I am surprised that people are not more concerned about animal welfare in the Community.
Let us consider more what is happening in other parts of the world. The overriding reason for allowing the export of some live animals at present is our shortage of animal food. There are in the South-West alone more than 1,000 animals dying from malnutrition, and I have seen them in the knackers' yards. If we have a cold spell, the situation will be made worse. Let us ease the farmer's burden by allowing the export of live animals for the time being and so enable more food to go to the animals that remain. We have a choice whether to allow more animals to starve to death or to allow some to be exported and so relieve the pressure on those that remain. I choose the latter.
The export of live animals should continue only for the time being. We should go to the deadweight basis if possible. The Ministry should watch carefully to see whether there is any abuse, and if there is it should be stopped.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) has set an excellent example of brevity. A number of hon. Members wish to take part and the wind-up speeches will start at nine o'clock. We can accommodate a considerable number of hon. Members if they are brief.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was under the impression that the debate was open-ended and that it could go beyond 10 o'clock.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate must end at 10 o'clock, and I understand that the winding-up speeches will start at nine o'clock.

8.18 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hatton: I welcome the opportunity to make a brief intervention to speak against the export of live animals and in support of a permanent ban. The more I read the report, the greater is my impression that the investigations were undertaken from the point of view of justifying the export of live animals rather than from an impartial viewpoint. The committee appears to have reached its conclusions and made its recommendations on the basis of flimsy investigations of individual allegations that the Balfour Assurances were not being complied with, and it exhibits an almost incredible degree of naivety in those investigations.
The conclusions which recommend that the suspension of trade in live animals for slaughter in countries within the EEC should be rescinded under certain safeguards until such time as European welfare regulations are brought up to acceptable British standards are somewhat contentious.
First, we have no guarantee that such animal welfare regulations as may be adopted in the countries of the EEC will be as stringent as those applied in this country. Secondly, the safeguards detailed in the report would be only slightly better that the Balfour Assurances, and to ensure their compliance would be just as difficult.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) suggested that we should subject the findings of the O'Brien Report to scrutiny. In making brief contribution I am unable to do that in any detail, but I shall look at one or two paragraphs.
Paragraph 35 of the report states that the conditions seen by the representatives of the trade and producer interests presented a somewhat different picture from the allegations made by various welfare bodies and others. It is hardly likely that they would be objective in their analysis. The paragraph goes on to state:
we do not believe that there has been on either side a deliberate intention to mislead.
That may be so, but the Government's purpose in appointing the committee was surely to identify the areas of unintentionally misleading evidence and to conduct an impartial investigation leading to an objective report. The impartiality of the investigation and the objectivity of


the report I believe to be open to question.
In paragraph 38 reference is made to the handling of animals during transport, and the report states:
variations in stock handling ability can exist between different markets but in our view this is an area where local control can and should be exercised.
The precise reason for the difficulties experienced in the past has been that under the Balfour Assurances local control should have been but was not exercised. There is no reason to believe that anything within the report is likely to enforce greater compliance by local control authorities.
I wish to make one other comparison in subjecting the report to a brief scrutiny. Paragraph 77 relates to an incident where it had been proved that certain pre-stunning equipment had not been used and as a result slaughtermen were penalised. The committee was given the
strongest assurance by the French Ministry of Agriculture that further severe penalties would be imposed if there should be a repetition of this.
One wonders whether the "Balfour Assurances" were given as strongly as they should have been. It is well known that certain aspects of those assurances are not kept, and it is surprising to find the O'Brien Committee prepared to accept them.
The committee stated that it believed that by allowing the trade to continue under strict and proper conditions we could set a practical example to other nations trading in livestock and thereby contribute to a general raising of standards. That appears to be pious nonsense. The committee disregarded the economic arguments since it said that such a practice would contravene Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome. However, the article stated that prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports or goods in transit might be justified on the grounds of public morality, public policy or public security and the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants. Despite the arguments advanced by the O'Brien Committee, those provisions could well be applied to the trade involving the export of animals.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department—who I am pleased to see in the Chamber this even-

ing— referred in an Adjournment debate some time ago to serious financial dilemmas faced by the Manchester abattoir which at that time had a deficit in excess of £1,000 a day and was losing money at a rate of £400,000 annually. Despite what has been said by the Opposition in this debate, I understand that there is excess capacity in many abattoirs—abattoirs which are approved in respect of the export of meat to EEC countries. At present the city of Manchester is spending £9,000 on improving the modern abattoir there to bring it more into line with EEC regulations and to enable a greater throughput so that pigs and sheep can be slaughtered in greater numbers. There are great economic advantages in using the facilities we have in the retention of by-products in this country and in terms of increased employment opportunities.
However, despite the economic arguments, I, along with many of my hon. Friends, will vote against the motion because we believe that a total ban on the export of animals for slaughter is the only humane solution in this controversial matter and the only way to prevent a great deal of suffering.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. George Thompson: Hon. Members this evening have spoken a great deal about ideals, and clearly in an ideal world we should all be vegetarians and there would be no cruelty or suffering in the animal world. But as long as we insist on eating meat—and I must confess that I consumed a nice piece of roast veal this evening—we shall have to accept that this unpleasant business must go on.
I was told in the General Election that my agent had arranged for me to visit a slaughterhouse but thought better of it because he did not think that I would be at my best for the rest of the day. Yet I go on eating meat. I have had a number of letters on the subject from my constituents, and only one lady was totally logical; she was a vegetarian and was against the trade. I take off my hat to her, but I disagree with her.
I agree with the O'Brien Report when it says that if there is avoidable cruelty that is necessarily bound up with the trade, we should refuse to carry on the trade irrespective of the economic arguments. The question boils down to this:


is there necessary and unavoidable cruelty? I get the impression from some of the letters I have received that the writers believe that the minute that we cross the Channel we land in territory that is inhabited by fiends. Are the people on the other side of the Channel so cruel to animals? I have lived in Italy and France. Not having visited the slaughterhouses in those countries, I cannot tell hon. Members what they are like. I did not receive the impression that continental farmers were any more or any less cruel than farmers in Scotland.
It is interesting that so often when we refer to places of slaughter we prefer, instead of the good old English word "slaughterhouse", the French word "abbatoir". I feel that there is an element of xenophobia in this. There are differences between those who live in towns and those who live in the country. The townsman has his pet cat or dog, with which he has a close affinity. The countryman knows cattle, sheep and pigs because he works with them.
I believe that we in the country tend on the whole to be less sentimental and less anthropormorphic in our judgement of animal suffering. The moment we wish to enter into the psychology of animals, we find that we cannot do so. We are not able to say whether the beast waiting to be killed suffers. We know only that human beings do.
I wonder why the organisations which very properly deal with cruelty to animals and its prevention have not been on a mission to our overseas partners in the EEC to persuade public opinion in those countries to make the necessary changes. It may be that they have done so. I hope that they have.
Referring to the transport of animals, earlier in the debate, "wild staring eyes" of animals leaving the ships were evoked. If we see a transporter or lorry containing cattle and we peer through the spaces between the boards, I am sure that we shall see eyes that are staring. They may be wild. The point is that there must be stress on the animal loaded on to a lorry and transported it knows not where, probably at high speeds, on country roads which could certainly have fewer corners. Yet I have never heard anybody urging that we should return to the droving of animals along the roads on the hoof,

which is what I remember happening when I was a small boy.
If there is stress on the animal at sea which is beyond what it suffers on land then while it is crossing the Pentland Firth or the Minch in bad weather, it must suffer the same stress caused by the North Sea or English Channel crossings. My information—I have carefully avoided crossing the Pentland Firth or the Minch by boat—is that those seas can be pretty rough, too. Yet there is no cry to stop the traffic between the mainland of Scotland and the islands. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, it would not be possible to do that, unless we insisted that each island slaughtered its own cattle and had no export trade except that of carcase meat. Where could we find the inspectors to supervise the abattoirs—or, for that matter, the necessary abattoirs?
It is contended that the animals are not loaded properly on to the boats. I do not believe that there is any difference between the men of Kent or Lincolnshire and the men of Scotland. I do not believe that the men of Kent or Lincolnshire are rough, hard men when it comes to treating animals while the men of Scotland are gentle, kind persons. I believe that humanity is the same in both places. I submit that the trade is neither necessarily nor avoidably cruel.
I was glad to have the assurance of the Minister, and I am glad to note that those assurances will be repeated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am glad that we shall receive those assurances so that my hon. Friends who have not all had the opportunity of listening to the debate may hear them and carry them back to their constituents.
If a committee is set up, carries out its investigation, and reports, we should not lightly set aside the conclusions of its report. If we receive positive and honest assurances from the Minister, we should not decline to believe them. Therefore, I advise my hon. Friends to vote in favour of restoring the traffic in live animals.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. John Tomlinson: I wish to support the motion. However, before giving a few reasons why I believe that we should take that step I want briefly


to refer to some remarks which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Hatton). It was sought earlier in the debate to call into question the impartiality of the O'Brien Report, and I believe that is a matter which the majority of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House regret. We have had a thorough investigation by the O'Brien Committee. To suggest that all that the committee was doing was seeking to make a case to justify the export of live animals is a travesty of what happened.
I welcome the report. I believe that what we have had from all those who oppose the restoration of the trade in live animals is a statement of the same arguments, as if nothing had happened since the O'Brien considerations were made. We have heard exactly the same pre-1973 arguments as if circumstances were exactly the same. This is not the case, of course. Since the O'Brien Committee was set up a number of very important changes have occurred. We have had the EEC directive on humane slaughtering. That is by no means a futuristic proposal. It was adopted by the Community in November last year. We have also had the Council of Europe convention on the protection of animals during international transport. That has now been ratified by all the countries in the EEC, with the exception of the Netherlands. The Commission of the European Community is at present working on draft directives on Community slaughter practices. The circumstances of the post-O'Brien considerations are entirely different in almost every respect from those which led this House in 1973 to set up the O'Brien Committee to examine the widespread concern which existed, even in the farming community itself.
I would have been disturbed about the wording of the motion had we not had the clear assurance from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture—and which I hope will be spelt out again in the reply to the debate—about the word "now". I believe that the inclusion of that word in the motion means that we must have spelt out clearly exactly what we are to do in relation to the control of licences and to the withdrawal of licences if the circumstances of the

trade are unsatisfactory, and how we are to penalise in other ways besides the withdrawal of licences unsatisfactory circumstances of trading. I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber).
Many hon. Members have quoted selectively and even misquoted the O'Brien Report to underline what they allege to be the marginal economic effect of the restoration of the trade. Half of a sentence in paragraph 21 says that
… it is of small economic significance to the United Kingdom as a whole.
If the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) had quoted the whole sentence, as I attempted to invite him to do, instead of picking up the sentence half-way through, it would have been clear that the O'Brien Committee said:
We took the view that although the live trade is of importance to those in the industry who are affected by its operations, it is of small economic significance to the United Kingdom as a whole.
It is important to recognise that it is of very great significance to British agriculture, and of much greater significance today than in the circumstances of 1973, and even in the circumstances of nine months ago when the O'Brien Report was published.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend also accept the exhortation in the report where the Committee says, in page 24, that
… it must be remembered that the live export trade in slaughter animals accounts for only about 2 per cent. of total United Kingdom livestock production"?

Mr. Tomlinson: I certainly accept my hon. Friend's quotation and I am prepared to have a chat about it with her afterwards. I will even explain its significance and what 2 per cent. means, because 2 per cent. is not insignificant. It is a very significant factor indeed. It is one which ought not to be tossed out as if 2 per cent. is totally insignificant when it is very significant indeed in relation to the agricultural industry as it exists today.
Another point on which we have heard rather superficial argument is fodder. We have been told, and everybody accepts, that there is a serious position in relation to fodder. We have had all kinds of outrageous statements suggesting that unless we export 3 million live animals this will have no effect on the fodder


situation. In fact, every single animal exported has an effect. The export of one would have little effect, but the export of 3 million would have a very great effect. If we have restoration of the trade to the level it was at in the immediate pre-O'Brien situation it would make a significant contribution to the solution of the fodder problem, although it would not be a total solution to it. In view of the seriousness of the fodder problem as it exists any contribution is to be welcomed and certainly not to be sneered at because it does not provide a total solution.
Anybody who feels that a solution to the fodder situation can be found at a single attempt is certainly living in a fool's paradise. If he has it, let him give it to my right hon. Friend, who can certainly use it if it will produce a magic formula which will open Pandora's Box and produce fodder.
An important argument that we have not heard today is that this additional restoration of confidence in our agriculture industry also has another significant economic effect, and it is not one which should be scorned at a time of difficult economic circumstances—the reduced cost to the Government of agricultural support. This is very significant to us because of our present circumstances, in addition to the balance of payments consequences.
In my opinion none of these things in themselves would justify the restoration of the live trade if there were cruelty, but I have read the O'Brien Report, not selectively and not once. I have tried to read it dispassionately, bearing in mind the views of my constituents, some of whom are opposed to the reintroduction of the live trade, some of whom support it. I have no particular axe to grind as an individual other than to see this House do what I believe is the sensible thing rather than display an emotional reaction to circumstances which might well lead us to a wrong course of action.

Mr. Ron Thomas: May I refer my hon. Friend to paragraph 34, referred to earlier? It says:
While our investigations assume a certain number of allegations have been well founded …
The O'Brien Committee tends to use the term "allegations" when talking of those whose reports favour keeping the ban

and terms such as "representations" and "evidence" on the other side. How many well-founded allegations does my hon. Friend think there need to be for him to support a continuation of the ban?

Mr. Tomlinson: At the moment I am not satisfied that there is any evidence of cruelty that is in any way other than cruelty that must be expected by people who in any circumstances will be in breach of any kind of rules. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who spoke earlier in support of the motion, said we have excellent regulations against child cruelty but those do not stop it, and, therefore, we should scrap all those regulations. I believe we have excellent safeguards to stop cruelty to animals, but that does not mean that in no circumstances is cruelty going to occur.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

Mr. Tomlinson: No. I will not give way to my hon. Friend. The House has heard too much of him during the course of the afternoon.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have spoken only once, and you will agree that that was at the request of the Chair, and if the hon. Member makes a remark of that kind that is a reflection on the Chair. It was the Chair who called me.

Mr. Tomlinson: I apologise if my hon. Friend is so sensitive but I understand other colleagues have said some words during the day, and I overheard them, in relation to my hon. Friend's interventions. I certainly apologise to his sensibility.
One of the major arguments has been: why should we have live trade rather than carcase trade? Of course, the underlying assumption is that the only trade in cattle is for immediate slaughter. There are other areas of trade—[Interruption.] Yes, but there is also transport of live animals for rearing.
I believe that the arguments are overwhelming. The O'Brien Committee has done a thorough job and examined all the evidence. Many of the allegations made are covered by its statement in paragraph 20:
Some of the welfare societies and private individuals who have given evidence to us have undertaken fieldwork themselves, but a large


proportion have been quite ready to acccept the reports of others as a basis for their arguments. On this secondhand evidence they have founded vehement appeals for the abolition of the export trade in live animals for slaughter.
I regret that I cannot follow their example, and I hope that the House does not follow it either.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is the duty of the Chair, as hon. Members appreciate, to maintain a balance between speeches for and against the motion. We have just had two speeches for the motion and I think that it is my duty to call someone to speak against the motion. I understand that all those who have just risen on the Opposition side are for the motion, so I propose to call another speaker from the Government side. Mr. Leadbitter.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: It might comfort other hon. Members, who are obviously disappointed at not having been called, that I intend to speak for no more than four or five minutes.

Mr. Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are the custodian of back benchers' rights. Many of us have sat here, apart from only a short break, for the whole debate, yet hon. Members come in on the Government side and take part almost immediately.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), whom I have just called, has been in the Chamber for the whole period of my occupation of the Chair. In any case, I think hon. Members will agree that we should have balance in debate and not have three consecutive speakers for the motion. I am therefore calling the hon. Member for Hartlepool.

Mr. Leadbitter: rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. Is it not the case—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If we could save interventions and points of order, we could probably get in all the hon. Members who wish to speak. Mr. Lewis on a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I want to get this on the record. Is it not the case that, whatever happens, the Chair is right? Right or wrong, the Chair is always right. I want to get that clear, because earlier, I think before you were in the Chair, Mr. Speaker himself said that he would try to call speakers alternately for and against the motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am glad to have the hon. Member's statement that the Chair is always right. I shall introduce him to my wife, and he can tell her that as well.

Mr. Leadbitter: The question is not whether people are cruel or not cruel but whether the House wants to satisfy itself that a certain course is right and to do so on the basis of evidence, without imputing the motives of O'Brien or anyone else. My hon. Friend the Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) said on 12th July 1973:
there is the fact that the evidence on sheep last year and early this year showed breaches of the Balfour Assurances to such a considerable extent that no control was possible, so the Government were forced to suspend sheep export licences.
So without reference to the House, on the evidence available to them, the Government had decided to stop the issue of licences. And that was not so long ago.
My hon. Friend went on:
The evidence on cattle shows the same pattern, and rightly so, for the same people are dealing with cattle as were dealing with sheep.
The fourth point that he made is pertinent:
Fourthly, we in this country had official assurances from Continental Governments about the treatment of sheep. These assurances turned out to be valueless. Why should we have any more trust in official assurances about cattle?"—[Official Report, 12th July 1973; Vol. 859, c. 1802.]
This raises a point which I should like to put to the Minister. We have at the moment a motion the drafting of which is highly questionable, not in the sense that I doubt my right hon. Friend's motives but in the sense that it does not really give us the kind of overall, complete assurance that the House would like to have if the vote goes a certain way, because we are concerned about questions of control and enforcement Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend whether, if


this is a possible mistake in putting before the House a motion which means that licences will be issued tomorrow and that the concern of the House and of the country will be renewed, it would not have been better in such an important matter as this to consider bringing in a Bill in order that the 24 recommendations of the O'Brien Committee, with all their requirements, their regulatory aspirations for enforcement, the staff that are required and, indeed, the reciprocal arrangements we need with the Common Market countries in particular, might be debated in this House and would therefore become matters of law, which is quite different from what is stated in the report, which seeks to have a code of practice. Most of us know what can happen with codes of practice.
Therefore, to be brief and in deference to hon. Members opposite, I simply express my belief that the Minister might take into account the question I have put to him: namely, whether this is an advisable step and whether, on reflection, it would not have been better for the Government to take this into their own hands and bring forward a Bill so that we could scrutinise it and, at the end of the day, have on the statute book regulations that are enforceable by law.

9.52 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers: It was in July 1973 that this House voted to suspend licences for the export of live food animals for slaughter abroad. Like the Minister himself, as he confessed today, I was one of those who, on that occasion, supported this on the ground that there seemed to be reliable evidence then that the Balfour Assurances on which the trade had been conducted had been circumvented and ignored and that there had been suffering by the dumb animals which could have been prevented.
I have had well over 50 letters on this subject, and the breakdown is half in favour of the O'Brien Report and the other half urging me to vote against it. I have the greatest admiration and respect for those groups and individuals who really care about the welfare of animals, which cannot speak for themselves, and do not wish to see any avoidable cruelty practised. But I must confess that I think the people who write to me and know very little about the trade take

one point of view, while those people who know about farming or about the trade in meat take the opposite point of view. I want to say—it has been said before, but it cannot be said too often—that it is a great mistake to think that farmers are callous people who do not care about animals. They are kind and warm-hearted people who like animals as much as does anyone else.
That is why I was delighted that, after the vote in 1973, the O'Brien Committee was set up with the intention of reviewing the export trade in live animals and considering the welfare of such animals and whether is was being properly safeguarded. I think we owe a great debt of gratitude to Lord O'Brien and his Committee for the thorough way in which they have examined this problem and the objectivity with which they have reported.
The essence of the committee's recommendations is threefold: first, that a permanent ban on the export of live animals is not justified on either welfare or economic grounds; secondly, and most important, that the most effective means of safeguarding the welfare of all animals entering the livestock trade within the EEC lies in the implementing of common European welfare regulations to cover both transport and slaughter—which is what I believe; and thirdly, that until such time as these common regulations have been introduced, the trade in live animals should be allowed to continue only under interim safeguards. All that has been agreed.
As one of the United Kingdom delegates to the Council of Europe, I should like to quote from our report, which deals with the contribution made by the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals. Here is the situation as it exists now, and I read from paragraph 18:
The Member States of the EEC, with the exception of the Netherlands, as signatories to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport, are moving towards ratification of this Convention. France, Germany and the United Kingdom ratified on 9th January 1974 and Belgium, Denmark and Luxembourg had ratified prior to that date. In response to the discussion on animal welfare in the Council of Ministers on 25th September 1973 the Commission are working on a draft directive on Community slaughter practices and it is


expected that this will be put to the Council of Ministers in the near future.
These are the safeguards which we can expect and which we have now received from the O'Brien Committee.
Had time permitted, I would have stressed the other safeguards—for example, the use of special veterinary inspectorates, supervisory bodies, and veterinary services at embarkation and disembarkation. I think that the O'Brien Committee has done a splendid and objective job, and I commend the Minister of Agriculture for the way in which he introduced the subject today. He has turned his coat, as I have done, but we are not ashamed. We have changed our minds, and that can be a healthy diet.
We should not be swayed by well-intentioned people, however well-intentioned they are. I think that the O'Brien Committee has shown that not only would the resumption of this trade help the farming community, which so desperately needs it, but that animals are suffering from lack of fodder and that the ban is causing more suffering to animals rather than preventing it. I shall support the Government in their acceptance of the report, and I hope that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends will do so.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) and others who suggest that the O'Brien Report was impartial and objective. I find it neither impartial nor objective. It begins by making a promise that the committee made a judgment in the first place which would allow it to give primary importance to the welfare of animals. From that promise or judgment, the committee could have adopted a number of approaches, for clearly the phrase "welfare of animals" does not lend itself to some kind of scientific and statistical determination.
Faced with a spectrum of choice, the committee, in my view, took a far too rigid line of reasoning—that unless every one of the cases of a disregard for the welfare of animals reported to it could be proved beyond a shadow of doubt, economic or political factors should determine the committee's findings.
At the same time, and as an integral part of that approach, the report indicates to me that the committee seemed determined to find and offer any excuse in cases in which there was an acceptance that the welfare of animals had been disregarded, and, linked with this, the report shows an overwhelming desire to accept any assurance whatever that the incidents concerned would not happen again.
The first few lines of paragraph 34 set the scene, and the conclusions seem almost inevitable. The paragraph begins:
It must be said at the outset that if all these allegations were substantiated they would indicate a highly disturbing state of affairs.
As has already been pointed out, if even some of these allegations had been substantiated, they would show a highly disturbing state of affairs. In the next sentence, the committee admits that a number of cases were proven, but it does not tell us how many such cases would have to be proven for the committee to accept that the ban ought to be continued. The report admits that, on investigation, a number of incidents were shown to be well founded. I repeat, however, that it does not tell us how many would have needed to be well founded for the committee to reach a rather different set of conclusions.
The same sentence in the report suggests that we look at paragraphs 68 and 79, which are supposed to explain and convince us that these cases of cruelty did not happen. I find those two paragraphs unconvincing.
The whole of the language in the report shows a lack of objectivity. When it comes from those who would like to continue the ban, they talk of allegations. When it comes from the other side, they talk of evidence and cases. But nowhere is this shown to be the case when they mention something happening. In paragraph 56 we see the words:
We have heard of an incident in 1969 when 26 calves died from suffocation".
Either they did or they did not die. That sentence could have been put in a totally different form. Surely there are records to show whether the incident took place or not.
In my judgment, the report is not objective, neutral, far-reaching or impartial. I suspect the reason is that those concerned are frightened to challenge the Common


Market on the issue by saying that they will use Article 34 and impose a permanent ban.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for being called in this important debate. I congratulate the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) on the reasoned, logical and objective way in which they have put their arguments in support of the O'Brien recommendations. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson) on an absolutely splendid speech seeing through all the smokescreens that have been cast across the real issues in this debate.
I may be one of very few hon. Members who, after the debate in July 1973, accompanied a consignment of cattle from my constituency to the abattoir in Holland.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Did the hon. Gentleman escape?

Mr. Winterton: I did this unheralded and without notice. No arrangements were made by the people involved in the export to give me the red carpet treatment.
I was present when the cattle were sold at the Congleton cattle market, where they were inspected by a veterinary surgeon and a blood test was taken. I watched them being watered and fed at the market, where they stayed overnight.
The following day I saw them loaded into a cattle truck, and I accompanied them from Congleton on the road journey to the lairage at Decoy Farm, Ormesby, near Great Yarmouth, which is owned by W. Lanham and Sons, the carriers. Those who say that the carriers do not care about their cargoes are talking through the tops of their heads because the cargoes are valuable. Bruised meat does not sell well. Ill-treatment meted out to animals in transit, either on the boat or in road transport, reduces their weight, and weight, when it comes to the end product, is valuable. I inspected the lairage, which was ideal in every way. The cattle were again watered and fed and there was plenty of straw bedding.
On Thursday, 2nd August, the cattle were inspected by a veterinary surgeon before being taken to the dock at Great Yarmouth where I saw them embarked.

I inspected the pens, which were clean, and there was no overcrowding. I remind the House that the number of cattle that can be carried by a particular ship and the sizes of the pens are strictly regulated by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
I sailed with the boat in question, the "Duke of Holland"—a ship of the Norfolk Line on the Norfolk ferry service—and we arrived at Scheveningen at approximately nine o'clock on Friday morning.
The cattle were disembarked and taken by cattle trucks some 800 metres to the dock lairage where they were unloaded, watered, and examined by a veterinary surgeon. The lairage was adequate in every way. The cattle were loaded into cattle trucks again and taken to the lairage at the slaughterhouse—Firma van de Wel en van Dijk, Openbaar Slachthuis, Den Haag, Kantoor 17 en 18. Here they were watered and fed, and the lairage again was generously provided with straw bedding. There was no shortage of space. Each animal had plenty of time and plenty of room to lie down.
This was an unheralded journey. No red carpet treatment was meted out to me. Holland was referred to by the hon. Member for Meriden as the one country which has not yet put its signature to the EEC regulation. The treatment was excellent in every way. I go so far as to say that the treatment there in the cattle markets and the slaughterhouses was probably better than in this country.
I saw a number of animals into the slaughter chamber. They were not slaughtered in sight of each other. However, I must add that the animals that I saw into the slaughter chamber were not from the consignment which I accompanied from my constituency, as it is the custom to rest animals after their journey for a period of between 48 and 72 hours.
Tonight I intend to support the recommendations of the O'Brien Committee. I congratulate the committee on the proper way in which it tackled a very difficult task.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: At this late hour I shall be very brief. I shall confine my remarks to one particular point I wish to put to the Minister.
I am not altogether satisfied with the motion. I am sorry that little or no mention is made of many of the useful recommendations in the O'Brien Report. I am worried, too, about the gap in time between now and July when the Minister hopes to get the EEC regulations into effect. But I do not intend to develop that point now.
I want to concentrate on a particular aspect of this matter and explain to the House why I shall be voting for the motion although it is very unsatisfactory in itself. That reason is this. I say "Look at the map." After we banned live sheep exports from Britain in February 1973, I went to Dublin in April and met Mr. Clinton, the Eire Minister of Agriculture, and departmental officials. At the end of April they were good enough to show me their export figures for live sheep from Dublin and Cork to the Continent and how they compared in the previous weeks with the figures for the same period in the previous year. From the time when we banned our exports of live sheep there was a marked increase in live sheep exports from Dublin.
The Minister there was good enough to say that our ban had helped the Irish exporter tremendously and that he hoped we would be foolish enough to ban the export of live cattle also. We were foolish enough to ban the export of live cattle. In July we did exactly that. The result was the same for the Irish live cattle trade to the Continent as it had been for the Irish live sheep trade. That trade multiplied as soon as we took this action in Britain.
I say to the animal welfare supporters tonight—although we are all animal welfare people at heart—"Look at your maps." Is it more humane to supply from Britain the live animals which these abattoirs on the Continent will have—from some source—from carefully defined regulations and in well conducted circumstances, as the Government propose—a journey of perhaps, on average, 100 miles—or is it more humane or kinder to the animals to allow them to travel 500 miles or 600 miles from Cork or Dublin through the rough western approaches to the English Channel to get to the same continental abattoirs?
The abattoirs will have them. They do not care whether we regain our market or the Irish continue to supply them. Moreover, the regulations governing the conditions in which these animals travel from the Republic of Ireland are not as stringent as our British regulations. Therefore, I say to the welfare lobby "Look at the map before you vote tonight."

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: No one who has been present, as I have been, both at the debate in July 1973 and again today, or who has read even a fraction of the huge number of letters which have been written to hon. Members on the subject, will doubt the deep concern which is felt on the issue by a large section of the population as well as by hon. Members.
We are not divided in our detestation of cruelty. We are not divided in our determination to avoid unnecessary suffering. Those of us who believe that the O'Brien Committee's recommendations should be accepted and that the ban on the export of live animals for slaughter should be lifted respect the passionately-held views of those who take the contrary viewpoint. We also have a duty to explain to them and to those who are anxious and undecided the reasons for our own strongly-held convictions.
In the face of the fact, accepted by the O'Brien Committee, that the trade is of small economic significance to the United Kingdom as a whole, we have to explain not only why it can be justified but why it is so important that it should be allowed. I believe that we must start, as the committee started, by accepting that the business of slaughtering animals so that they may be consumed as food is not an attractive operation in any circumstances. Nevertheless, in the words of paragraph 20 of the report,
while the majority of people wish to eat meat, it is a necessary one".
It would be possible to prepare a report complete with photographs on British abattoirs which would revolt those who did not already know what was involved. In the circumstances the vegetarian point of view is very understandable, but the majority of us are not vegetarians and the argument is only about whether the transport of animals


to the Continent and their slaughter there is an even beastlier business, a point effectively made by the hon. and learned Member for Mongomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Thompson).
There are three basic questions. The first is whether, when the process of slaughter is preceded by transport to the Continent, additional stress and suffering arise to the extent that the operation should not be permitted, or whether cruelty is more prevalent in continental abattoirs. Secondly, is there an economic case for the export trade that justifies even a marginal increase in the possibility of stress and suffering? Thirdly, can there be effective safeguards to ensure that abuses or mistakes—and, therefore, unacceptable suffering—do not take place? All three questions have been dealt with in the debate.
The committee firmly answered the first question. Paragraph 21 of the report says that
although there have undoubtedly been shortcomings in the past which may, on occasion, have amounted to ill treatment of the animals, we believe that these can be remedied. We do not consider that the degree of stress involved in any one section of the export trade, nor its cumulative effect, is sufficient to justify a permanent ban".
The committee elaborates on its conclusions, and in paragraph 85 it states roundly:
If we had come to the conclusion that the trade was inhumane we should have had no hesitation in recommending a ban on that element of the trade which is carried on in live form. We have not come to such a conclusion, however, and we are therefore proposing a system of controls which we consider will safeguard the welfare of the animals in the slaughter trade. We believe that by allowing the trade to continue under strict and respected conditions we could set a practical example to those other nations which trade in livestick and thereby contribute to a general raising of standards.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: Does the hon. Member agree that the transport of animals by sea must necessarily involve considerable stress? The O'Brien Committee observed in paragraph 50 that although it approved the system of loading,
There are occasionally recalcitrant animals which resist all efforts at persuasion and these may have provoked the use of undue force as was reported to us by a number of witnesses.

Does not the hon. Member agree that the stress involved in the sea transport of live animals necessarily leads to cruelty irrespective of the standards? This was not one of the questions to which the O'Brien Committee directed itself.

Mr. Edwards: It is not the conclusion I reached on reading the report. One would have to deal with recalcitrant animals just as much when loading them into other forms of transport. In any case, there are considerable sea voyages in the transport of animals within the British Isles.
I want to return to the question of standards and the impact of our decision, which was freely discussed in the debate in July 1973, but not so much today. It was argued then by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who has not been present today, that we should set an example. He believed that to be more important than the possibility that cattle from this country would be replaced by cattle from other countries, sometimes much further afield, so that the totality of suffering would be increased rather than decreased.
The forecasts made then by Sir Clive Bossom and others that cattle would instead come from Ireland and Eastern countries has come true. It is almost certain that as a direct consequence of our decisions cattle have been transported for far greater distances and that additional suffering has been caused. My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), the then Minister of Agriculture, was right when he argued that far better than a unilateral ban would be international action to raise standards and that we should work to that end through the EEC.
The committee reached the same conclusion, that
The most effective means of safeguarding the welfare of all animals entering the livestock trade within the EEC lies in the implementation of common European welfare regulations".

Mr. Burden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the committee did not start to act until after there had been an absolute ban on the export of sheep, and that the ban on the export of cattle was announced on the very day on which the committee was set up, so that it did not


see the export of cattle under normal circumstances and did not see the export of sheep at all?

Mr. Edwards: That was the fault of my hon. Friend and his hon. Friends who voted for the amendment in July 1973. It was the case of my right hon. Friend the then Minister that we should continue the trade while the examination took place. Therefore, that is my hon. Friend's responsibility.
The member States of the EEC, with the exception of the Netherlands, the Irish Republic and Italy, have ratified the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Animals during International Transport. Those three countries are expected to do so in the very near future. It is generally accepted that in any case serious problems will not arise in the Netherlands because of the strict enforcement of comprehensive animal welfare legislation there. The EEC directive on humane slaughter, adopted on 18th November 1974, requires member States to bring it into force not later than 1st July 1975.
The combination of the O'Brien conclusion and the new European measures convinces me, and I hope will convince others, that we can satisfactorily answer my first question.
Secondly, I asked whether there is an economic case for the export trade. The producers overwhelmingly believe that there is. The farmers and those who represent them are virtually unanimous on this point. Members for urban constituencies may have received numerous letters from their constituents. So have I, but in addition in my constituency farmers have marched and have held great meetings. Within a few days they collected more than 1,000 signatures on the petition that I have here. They have consistently, over a long period pointed to the impact of the ban on the price of cattle received in the markets. At a time when they have been facing a desperate crisis, they are convinced that the ban has been a critical factor destroying confidence, reducing flexibility and cutting the price they receive.
The NFU tells us:
The opportunity to export meat from the UK is essential to the maintenance of a healthy and balanced home market in so far as it helps to reduce the fluctuations resulting from varying domestic production and imports.

It continues:
certain categories of slaughter stock, e.g. heavy cows for manufacture, are commonly in surplus in the United Kingdom but in demand in other EEC countries.
The Farmers' Union of Wales says:
The severe blow to the confidence of our beef industry which the events of recent months (the removal of effective price support and the glutted and depressed market) has delivered is likely to result in a serious fall in production. This can be mitigated if some buoyancy is restored in the beef market as soon as possible. The resumption of live exports is one of the most effective immediate measures which can be taken in this regard.
In paragraph 21 the O'Brien Committee said:
the live trade is of importance to those in the industry who are affected by its operations ".
Thus we have a trade which, though not important for the United Kingdom economy as a whole—this is a point that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) made much of—is of critical significance to an important section of the economy, namely, the agricultural sector. That is a point that the hon. Gentleman ignored and a matter which was dealt with effectively by the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Tomlinson). In Wales almost every farmer reports that he previously sold regularly for export and the dealers say that if the ban is lifted there will be a market again. They say that they felt the impact immediately the ban was imposed on the prices of their products.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) pointed out the economic importance of the trade for Wales. He reminded us that the O'Brien Committee examined the matter before the recent catastrophic collapse of the beef market and was therefore unable to make an economic assessment in slump conditions. Farmers are confident that the export market could have played a crucial part in their economy at a time when they were virtually unable to find a home market.
The Director for Wales of the NFU writes:
In an over-supply situation in a completely unprotected market, our livestock industry has suffered severely this year and considerable financial losses and hardship have occurred on Welsh farms being, in the main, small family units. The ban on livestock exports during this time not only accentuated the catastrophic drop in farm incomes but has removed a


valuable market outlet for a whole class of livestock—such as cows and ewes—which has only a very limited demand in this country.

Mr. Crouch: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that the purpose of the export of live animals on the hoof is to get rid of old cow beef and not to sell beef for fattening abroad? That has been the pattern of the trade in this country. The number of cattle exported in 1973 was 76,000 as against over 1 million slaughtered for carcase. Those are the economic facts.

Mr. Edwards: I am saying that the trade that we are discussing is of extreme importance to many farmers. It is often an economic fact that the marginal element in an activity is particularly important for the price level. The disposal of the barren cow is highly significant.
I now turn to the question that I posed earlier of whether there are now adequate safeguards. That is a question that has greatly concerned the House. I have already referred to the new EEC convention. We have had the Minister's undertaking following an intervention by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and a further undertaking in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham that a licence will be issued only on the basis that the conditions that he spelt out are being observed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham did much to clarify the existing position. He reminded us that the convention on transport has already been ratified by six of the Nine. The Irish Republic and Italy already have legislation. The Netherlands, which has to produce the precise legislation, already has standards that are probably higher than anywhere else. Humane slaughter regulations are in force in all the countries which have agreed the Balfour Assurances.
We also have the directive on humane slaughter. As I understand it—no doubt the Secretary of State for Wales will confirm this—the directive is already in force, but until 1st July it cannot be enforced by the EEC mechanism. From that date the actions of individual Governments already being applied will be further strengthened by the authority of the Community. Together with the convention and the Council directive, we have the Minister's assurance that licences will

be issued only if those safeguards are being operated and that licences will be withdrawn if they are not observed.
I believe that taken together this gives us the safeguards we all want. I should like the Secretary of State for Wales to satisfy us on the question of veterinary inspection, which was not really dealt with by the Minister. I have referred to the economic case for reopening the trade and pointed out that the ban, by substituting cattle from more distant parts of Europe, far from reducing suffering has increased it.
Suffering is also rising because of the shortage of fodder and the pressure on our abattoirs. Cattle are starving or going hungry on our hills. The farmers of the United Kingdom are trying to feed over 14 million cattle with supplies adequate for about 13 million. I agree with the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) that it would be absurd to suggest that the problem can be solved through exports. The numbers are too great but hon. Members have expressed their passionate concern about cruelty. Even if 10,000 or 20,000 cattle could be exported during the next two months, the suffering of a similar number of animals could be alleviated.
If the ban had never been introduced, we might have had 100,000 fewer cattle in this country this winter and a very real contribution would have been made towards the alleviation of distress. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), who has consistently and passionately advanced his case, pointed to individual acts of cruelty. As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick) asked, in what areas are regulations always completely observed? He pointed out that we had laws designed to prevent cruelty to children but that we still had cruelty to children. The fact that individual acts of cruelty have been identified does not necessarily establish a case against the trade if the rules are generally observed and if there are safeguards to ensure that they are observed.
I wish to say something about the nature of the report. Many people have paid tribute to Lord O'Brien. He has made it clear that the committee, whose views were virtually identical with those of the Balfour Committee 17 years before, was unanimous but that at the outset


three of its five members had expected to take a contrary view. He has made it clear that the unanimity was arrived at spontaneously and without any kind of argument and in spite of the pressures and emotional attitudes with which the members were confronted.
He has put on record his view that in some countries on the Continent the practices are, if anything, better than our own and that it is an illusion to think that the devil starts on the other side of the Channel. The House demanded this investigation. Lord O'Brien, a distinguished ex-Governor of the Bank of England, was assisted by the President of the Royal College of Nursing, the President of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons—two people who have given their lives to alleviating suffering, human and animal—a distinguished QC who had been a member of the Northumberland Committee and a distinguished agricultural scientist.
They spent six months on their task. They went to markets, to slaughterhouses, lairages and ports, they travelled with cattle, they examined in detail the newspaper evidence that so influenced the House on the previous occasion and they came to the conclusion that a permanent ban on the export of live animals for slaughter was not justified. As the committee says in paragraph 119:
It would have been all too easy for the Committee simply to have bowed to the strong emotions which have been aroused on this subject. That, at least, would have made for a popular Report. We have been more concerned, however, to seek the truth and to make proposals that are reasonable and fair. This we believe our recommendations to be.
Surely this House, too, must be, and I am sure will be, more concerned with the truth than with emotion and will be equally reasonable and fair.
I am sure that the House will bear in mind that it is not being asked to reverse a previous decision. The original vote was not for a permanent ban but for an inquiry and, in the meantime, an interim supension of licences. The proposer of that motion, then the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West and now the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) argued for a suspension, not a ban. He said:
and to start the new inquiry and let it decide in what circumstances and with what safe-

guards the trade should be reopened, if at all."—[Official Report. 12th July 1973; Vol. 859. c. 1805]
We have now had that inquiry. It has suggested the circumstances and the safeguards, and we find that they are attainable. Surely, in that situation, and bearing in mind the needs of the agriculture industry, the House should permit the trade to be reopened, and I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the motion.

9.30 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. John Morris): I think that there is total agreement on both sides of the House that the debate has been a most useful one. Admittedly, divergent views have been expressed, but that was only to be expected. There has been no sign of unanimity on what should be done, but what has been manifestly clear and recognised by every hon. Member who has taken part is the deep and sincere concern which all British people share about the need to protect animals from cruelty and suffering. I, too, wish to go on record as sharing that concern.
I am sure we speak for the whole country on this matter. The United Kingdom can fairly claim to lead the world in animal welfare. That does not mean that we should not aim for even higher standards. I believe that we have much further to go. Examples have been quoted of dissatisfaction about the transport of animals within the United Kingdom, and we could all probably give examples of what we have seen from time to time. We have further to go, but we should combine progress with vigilance. I admit that there is a place for vigilantes in animal welfare, and the public are right to support the welfare organisations.
The issue tonight is not so much our common goal as whether we should, in the terms of the motion, allow the export of food animals to the Continent. Time has not stood still since the House took the important step it took in 1973. As was said by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), a great deal of progress has flowed from the resolution passed by the House in 1973. The Government of the day having set up the committee and the committee having reported, it is time to take advantage of all the good work to which the right hon.


Gentleman referred which has gone on since then. I say, in all humility, that we should resist the temptation to quote from past experience as if nothing had happened.
The essential facts can be simply stated. On 12th July 1973 the House decided that the export of live animals should be suspended pending an independent inquiry. I have detected a train of argument among some who feel passionately on this issue—and this came out strongly from the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who has played an active part on this subject for a long period of time—that they seek a ban on the export of all food animals for all time. That is perhaps a role and a stance somewhat different from the resolution of the House in July 1973.
The distinguished O'Brien Committee was then appointed to make a careful survey of the facts and to make recommendations. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the great thoroughness of its work. I appreciate that not all hon. Members have joined in that tribute, and perhaps they did not feel inclined to do so because they were unhappy at the committee's findings and tempered their views from that standpoint. That is perhaps unfortunate, but I fully understand their views.
However, I wish to pay tribute to the committee's work in tackling its task and producing an excellent report. One conclusion was that a permanent suspension of exports would be unjustified on either welfare or economic grounds. Secondly, it felt that the most effective means of safeguarding the welfare of animals in intra-Community trade lay in the implementation of common welfare regulations for both transport and slaughter. Thirdly, the committee thought that there should be no less effective safeguards for trade with non-EEC countries.
The Government accept these conclusions, but since the report was published a great deal of progress has been made within the EEC. There is now a directive on humane slaughter to which I shall refer in more detail a little later. Six of the Nine have already ratified the Council of Europe Conventions on the Protection of Animals during international transport and the other three are following suit. To give a effect to

the convention in Community law, the Commission will shortly make proposals to the Council of Ministers.
In the Government's view, this package of European measures meets in substance what the O'Brien Committee recommended. All these considerations are entirely concerned with animal welfare. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture said in opening the debate, it is right that welfare considerations should predominate on this issue and I yield to no one in that view. On the other hand, as many hon. Members have said, it is an undoubted fact that the resumption of exports would benefit our agriculture and balance of trade, though it would be a disservice to exaggerate the effect of that aspect.

Mr. Burden: The Minister says that the resumption will affect our balance of trade. How can the export of 2 per cent. of our cattle benefit our balance of trade when we know that in the first 243 days of last year we imported about £35 million worth of cattle from Ireland?

Mr. Morris: I do not think that argument stands up to logic. There is a difference in the quality of animals imported and exported and in the type of meat—and exports of even 0·2 per cent. would benefit our balance of payments. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not merit close examination.

Mr. Marten: The Minister said that the Commission was making proposals to the Council of Ministers to implement the European convention. Will that be done by regulation or by a directive? If it is to be done by a directive, it has to be translated into legislation by the provincial Parliaments, such as Britain and France.

Mr. Morris: I know of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in these matters. I anticipate that I shall be able to assist him fully, if he will give me a few minutes. But it will be a directive.
Having mentioned the issue of agriculture and the effect on the balance of trade, I come to the very careful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Roderick), who has brought to my attention time after time the situation in his constituency. There is no escaping the fact that poor weather this summer has led, as all of us in the


Principality know, to a substantial shortfall in supplies of hay and straw, carrying with it risks for the welfare of animals in several parts of the country and in particular in the Principality. We discussed with the farming unions and others what practical steps could be taken to mitigate those difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture made his decisions and announced them on 11th December.
Hay is in short supply throughout Europe. Some may be available in Canada and the United States but its importation would be very expensive. More than at any other time, therefore, we shall have to make the maximum and most efficient use of our domestic supplies.

Mr. Geraint Howells: The right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that, if the ban is lifted, the return to the hill farmers in Wales and other parts of Britain will improve. They will then be able to buy extra fodder to feed their animals.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing the point I made concerning the benefit to agriculture and hill farmers generally, who now find themselves without fodder with which to feed their animals. One should not exaggerate—I know that the hon. Gentleman with his experience, would not do so—the effects on the prospects or hopes of this trade. I am sure that the House will join me in commending the generosity and public spirit of those farmers who have contributed from their own stocks of fodder to help those less fortunate to keep their animals alive. However, whatever benefits may accrue from the combined efforts of the farmers and the Government, I am afraid that we shall be left with a situation in which some animals will be at risk. It is incumbent upon us to explore fully whatever other opportunities exist. That is a matter for all those who are passionately concerned with welfare, who should seriously bear it in mind in the way that they cast their votes this evening.

Mr. Corbett: Is my right hon. and learned Friend seriously suggesting that, assuming that this ban is lifted over the next eight or 10 weeks, a sufficient number of animals could be exported on the hoof to make anything except the most

insignificant contribution to the fodder shortage.

Mr. Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has clarified my point that we should not exaggerate the effect of the lifting of the ban, or the prospect of the trade.
As for some of the calculations made by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans), who hoped that the price of calves would rise ten times if the ban were lifted, I should want to put a large pinch of salt against any such forecast.
My family and I have been deeply involved in Welsh agriculture, and from a lifetime's experience I am deeply aware of the highly critical situation in the hills of the Principality today. Any help which can be given to the animals in the hills will be welcomed. I implore those with the welfare of such animals at heart to bear in mind the effect of even a small measure of help in that direction.

Mr. Stephen Ross: rose—

Mr. Morris: I have given way a number of times. However I must deal with the points about which I have been asked. I have been asked about progress and control.

Mr. Stephen Ross: rose—

Mr. Morris: No. I have given way to a number of hon. Members. There is no one in this House more generous than I am in giving way, and hon. Members know it, but I must ask them to allow me to make my own speech.
We would look foolish if we maintained the suspension of exports, only to find later that we had to debate what we might have to do to deal with underfed cattle on our hills. I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am advocating the resumption of our normal export trade, subject to close control and the safeguards which have been asked for by both sides, here and now, in the best interests of animal welfare and on the ground that sufficient progress has been made in the application of acceptable welfare standards on the Continent. Desirable side benefits will accrue to the farming industry, but that is not the primary reason.
Although I recognise the sincerity of those hon. Members who have urged that the suspension of exports should continue, I do not follow their logic. If we allow matters to stay as they are, we shall be perpetuating the practice of allowing Irish cattle to come here, entering on one side of the country, while an export ban is imposed on the other side. From the welfare point of view, it does not make sense to declare that journeys across the Irish Sea are acceptable but that shorter journeys across the English Channel which can take place only after the animals have had a 10-hour rest before embarkation impose unacceptable stress on the animals.
Nor does it make sense from the agricultural point of view. It does not make sense to Welsh farmers who currently have the doubtful distinction of watching cattle coming in at Holyhead while they bear the brunt of the fodder shortage.
It is not enough to argue that the resumption of exports would probably have little noticeable effect on market prices. For Welsh farmers it is primarily a question of confidence and of asking themselves whether they have sufficient fodder to feed all their livestock this winter. There is a serious and critical situation on the hills, and I ask the House to recognise this.
Perhaps the most important question raised in the debate is the progress which has been made. I want to deal with it because I know of the great interest on all sides of the House.
What progress has been made since O'Brien? The measures since July 1973 have involved a great deal of work and effort on the part of the Commission in Brussels. It has given it a high priority because of our pressure and because of the decision taken by the House of Commons in July 1973. The progress which has been made since that time will benefit those who care passionately about the welfare of British animals. It will also help those who are equally passionately concerned about the welfare of Continental animals.
It was my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) who spoke about the legal position. I want to deal with this point because several hon. Members have cast doubts on my right hon. Friend's claim that real and substantial progress has been made in the

EEC since the O'Brien Report. The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) suggested that nothing has really changed.
Let us look at the facts. First, there is the EEC directive on humane slaughter. It comes fully into force throughout the Community by not later than 1st July this year.

Mr. Burden: But not now.

Mr. Morris: But in the meantime each member State already has the necessary national law and that perhaps is the significance of the changed situation in many parts of the EEC since the debate in this House. Therefore, it follows that the directive when it comes into force is an umbrella in addition to national law. That is the significance of the present situation, which is why I am able to recommend to the House the motion which is now before it.

Mr. Burden: rose—

Mr. Morris: I will not give way, as the House wants to hear what I have to say.
The directive will be binding on all members. This means that the practice in Italy, referred to by the hon. Member for Gillingham, will become illegal. There is no significant trade between ourselves and Italy in this respect at the present time. One must deal with matters of consequence. The point I seek to make is that the value of what comes into effect on 1st July is that any infringement can then be taken up through the institutions of the Community. There are, therefore, two protections. Any individual can then make representations to the Community in addition to the existing protection of national law in each country.
Secondly, there is the European Convention on the Protection of Animals during International Transport. As from July 1974, this became binding on the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg and Denmark. All these countries have ratified this convention. The Netherlands, the Irish Republic and Italy have also accepted it in principle and intend to ratify it as soon as possible.

Mr. Crouch: rose—

Mr. Morris: No, I will not give way. If I do not deal with these matters the


House will have proper room for complaint because the House wants to know what progress has been made.
First, there is the proposed new EEC directive to reinforce the convention by making it Community law. This is not just an empty intention. The working party of experts met as recently as 11th December last and, as my right hon. Friend has said, the Commission hopes to put the proposals to the Council of Ministers shortly. But the point I have sought to make time after time is that the necessary national laws already exist for both the convention and the directive. This is an additional umbrella and will give the assurances that my hon. Friend wants as to how he can ensure enforcement outside the United Kingdom over what is happening in other countries. That is the policeman he wanted and that is the policeman he is getting. That is the value of the additional umbrella. A great deal of this arose from the debate in this House, although some of it was there already. The convention and the directive reinforce the national law.
Finally, the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals has informed my right hon. Friend of its progress in co-ordinating the activities of the welfare societies of Europe. I am sure that the hon. Member for Gillingham, after that, would not like me to say that nothing has changed. There has been real progress. That cannot be refuted. There has been sufficient progress to enable my right hon. Friend and myself to propose that there is no need to go for the interim arrangements suggested by the O'Brien Committee but that we should concentrate on the permanent EEC measures, which in any case the Committee considered to be the only satisfactory long-term solution. National laws already exist. Reinforcement of humane slaughtering will take place on 1st July. Reinforcement of transport arrangements should occur soon afterwards.
There is one other issue on which I was asked for assurances—the issue of licences. If the motion is carried, my right hon. Friend intends to announce that exports of animals will be resumed forthwith. They would be under close control. For exports to EEC countries,

licences to exporters would be for three months. There would be no discrimination between member States, and each consignment would be the subject of a veterinary examination and certificate. That is the assurance that hon. Members on both sides wanted.
There would be close co-operation between our State veterinary service and those of other member States. Shipments would be refused if welfare requirements were not met. In this connection, hon. Members should not overlook our domestic legislation on animal welfare and transport. We can be proud of it. Failure to comply with our requirements is a punishable offence.
In the same way, for exports to non-EEC countries we would grant particular licences against particular export orders, but only after we had fully satisfied ourselves about the welfare safeguards of the importing country, again on veterinary advice. I can assue the House that this will be under close control in the straightforward sense of the term. If we have doubts, it will mean that we are not satisfied. We shall not tolerate abuses and if there is any suggestion of abuse I have my right hon. Friend's assurance that he would not grant the licence. These are the assurances that hon. Members wanted. I give way now to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch).

Mr. Crouch: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for living up to his reputation for courtesy. I merely wanted to remind him that, of 24 recommendations in the O'Brien Report, not one dealt with the re-transport of cattle exported to a European port. There is no safeguard against journeys of up to 1,000 kilometres, about which the committee was so concerned. I hope that the Secretary of State will answer that.

Mr. Morris: I wanted to ensure, after I had dealt with the principal points, that the hon. Member had time to ask his question. If there is anxiety on that score, my right hon. Friend will consider it. I am satisfied that in the way in which he will deal with licences there will be proper safeguards and assurances. I therefore recommend the motion to the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: When I made my speech, I inadvertently—[HON. MEM-


BERS: "Sit down."] Please. I inadvertently—

MR. PEART rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. COLEMAN and Mr. HARPER were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but, no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question put accordingly:

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 191.

Division No. 59.]
AYES
[10.3 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Fry, Peter
Mates, Michael


Adley, Robert
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mather, Carol


Aitken, Jonathan
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mawby, Ray


Alison, Michael
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mayhew, Patrick


Anderson, Donald
Ginsburg David
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Awdry, Daniel
Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger


Banks, Robert
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Molyneaux, James


Beith, A. j.
Gray Hamish
Monro, Hector


Bell, Ronald
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Grist, Ian
Morgan, Geraint


Benyon, W.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bishop, E. S.
Hastings, Stephen
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)


Blaker, Peter
Hawkins, Paul
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Morrison, Peter (Chester)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Henderson, Douglas
Neave, Airey


Brittan, Leon
Heseltine Michael
Nelson, Anthony


Brotherton, Michael
Hicks, Robert
Neubert, Michael


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hooson, Emlyn
Newton, Tony


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hordern, Peter
Nott, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Oakes, Gordon


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Onslow, Cranley


Buck, Antony
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Osborn, John


Budgen, Nick
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hunter, Adam
Peart, Rt Hon Fred


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hurd, Douglas
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Canavan, Dennis
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cant, R. B.
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Carlisle, Mark
James, David
Prior, Rt Hon James


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
John, Brynmor
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Cockcroft, John
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Raison, Timothy


Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cope, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Reid, George


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Corrie, John
Jopling Michael
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Costain, A. P.
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Crawford, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ridsdale, Julian


Critchley, Julian
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Dalyell, Tam
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Kimball, Marcus
Roderick, Caerwyn


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Kinnock Neil
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Dormand, J. D.
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)


Drayson, Burnaby
Knox, David
Rowlands, Ted


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Durant, Tony
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Elliott, Sir William
Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Colin


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lawson, Nigel
Sims, Roger


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Sinclair, Sir George


Emery, Peter
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Speed, Keith


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Spence, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Luce, Richard
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacCormick, Iain
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Sproat, Iain


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacGregor, John
Stainton, Keith


Farr, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Stanley, John


Fell, Anthony
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Magee, Bryan
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Marquand, David
Stradling Thomas, J.


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Strang, Gavin




Tebbit, Norman
Wakeham, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Temple-Morris, Peter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Wigley, Dafydd


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Thompson, George
Walters, Dennis
Winterton, Nicholas


Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Watkinson, John
Younger, Hon George


Tomlinso, John
Watt, Hamish



Townsend, Cyril D.
Weatherill, Bernard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Tugendhat, Christopher
Wells, John
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Urwin, T. W.
Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Joseph Harper.


van Straubenzee, W. R.
White, Frank R. (Bury)





NOES


Archer, Peter
Grocott, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Grylls, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Atkinson, Norman
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Perry, Ernest


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Bates, Alf
Hamling, William
Prescott, John


Bean, R. E.
Hannam, John
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Radice, Giles


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Hatton, Frank
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Miss Jo


Boardman, H.
Higgins, Terence L.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Huckfield, Les
Rossi Hugh (Hornsey)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hunt, John
Sandelson, Neville


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Sedgemore, Brian


Burden, F. A.
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)


Campbell, Ian
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Sillars, James


Cartwright, John
Judd, Frank
Silverman, Julius


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Kaufman, Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kerr, Russell
Small, William


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Clemitson, Ivor
Lamborn, Harry
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Cohen, Stanley
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Crawshaw, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted
Spriggs, Leslie


Crouch, David
Lee, John
Stallard, A. W.


Crowder, F. P.
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cryer, Bob
Lipton, Marcus
Stewart, Rt Hn M. (Fulham)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Litterick, Tom
Stoddart, David


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Lomas, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Luard, Evan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Deakins, Eric
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Delargy, Hugh
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Tierney, Sydney


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Tinn, James


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
McCartney, Hugh
Torney, Tom


Dunn, James A.
Macfarlane, Neil
Tuck, Raphael


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Gregor
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Madden, Max
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Edelman, Maurice
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Marten, Neil
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Edge, Geoff
Meacher, Michael
Ward, Michael


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mendelson, John
Warren, Kenneth


English, Michael
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Weetch, Ken


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Weitzman, David


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
White, James (Pollok)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Whitehead, Phillip


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Whitlock, William


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mudd, David
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Williams, Alan (Swansea W)


Forrester, John
Murray, Ronald King
Williams, Alan, Lee (H'church)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Newens, Stanley
Wlliams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Freeson, Reginald
O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


George, Bruce
Ovenden, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gilbert, Dr John
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Woodall, Alec


Glyn, Dr Alan
Palmer, Arthur
Young, David (Bolton E)


Goodhart, Philip
Pardoe, John



Gould, Bryan
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Graham, Ted
Parkinson, Cecil
Mr. Robin Corbett and


Grant, John (Islington C)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Mr. William Molloy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House pays tribute to the work of Lord O'Brien's Committee on the Export of Animals for Slaughter (Command Paper No. 5566); and considers that, in view of the progress made in establishing international welfare safeguards and of other relevant considerations, the export trade in animals destined for slaughter should now be resumed under close control to member countries of the European Economic Community and to such other countries as can provide adequate safeguards for the animals in question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Motion relating to Agricultural Prices and the Motion relating to Consumer Rights and Protection may each be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

HON. MEMBER FOR NEWHAM, NORTH-WEST

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Arthur Lewis, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I had a word with you because I wanted to explain to the House that inadvertently in the last debate I made charges and allegations against the right hon. Gentleman which I subsequently found were not in accordance with the facts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which right hon. Gentleman?"] It happened to be the Prime Minister.
In my usual way of admitting when I am wrong, Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister to give way and he promised faithfully that he would, but he never did. Therefore, I want it now to go on record that if information which was supplied to me and which I gave to the House in all good faith was incorrect, as I understand it is, I withdraw it and apologise to the right hon. Gentleman—who happens to be the Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker: This all seems to be a little internecine.

EEC (AGRICULTURAL PRICES)

10.15 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/3358/74, R/3470/74, and R/3408/74.

Mr. Speaker: I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan).

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there some way in which the Chair can protect the House at this hour? Although it is true that we knew that these matters would arise and that three orders were to be taken together in a one and a half hour debate, is it not really a ridiculous situation when about 230 pages of memoranda, spreading over three orders and incorporating 15 different proposals, some of them having bearing on taxation and some having implications for United Kingdom law—some of which, according to their wording, being uncertain as to whether they do—and all of them, therefore, matters of considerable complexity, are limited to a one and a half hour debate? One of these documents is a report on the EEC agricultural policy for the year. Another embodies certain specific proposals. Surely it is possible for the House to be protected against all this stuff being consolidated together and railroaded through in the course of one and half hours. One is used to putting up with a good deal that is being done on behalf of the Common Market, but surely this is going a little too far.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I point out that yesterday the notice on the Order Paper asked us to take note only of Commission Document No. R/3358/74, which is very voluminous? On today's Order Paper we are asked to take note of two additional documents. This means in effect that hon. Members have had only since 10 o'clock this morning when the Vote Office opened to procure these two documents and the notes of guidance, which are of more

than 60 pages. These are obviously very complex documents.
It seems grossly unfair that hon. Members who have a very busy life during the day—[Interruption]—some of us do—should have only about 12 hours in which to do their normal duties and to absorb the information in these documents in such a way that they are able to bring to bear intelligent and useful comments.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Government through you, following the precedent set earlier when a motion appeared on the Order Paper without prior notice—relating to the financing of Opposition parties—to withdraw the two orders, Nos. R/3470/74 and R/3408/74, and give us more time to consider them? The Government should put them on the Order Paper at some future date. This is not an unreasonable request. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to draw this matter to the attention of the Government and to support this request.

Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): Perhaps I can help the House on this point of order, Mr. Speaker. I put down Document No. 3358, but the Scrutiny Committee then suggested to me that we might put the other two documents down for discussion at the same time.

Mr. Lee: Are we bound by that?

Mr. Short: No we are not bound by that, but the House has elected a Scrutiny Committee to advise on this and it is suggested that we debate the three documents together.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: As a member of the Scrutiny Committee may I point out that the two further orders do not require legislation. They are supplementary information relevant to tonight's debate and it seems sensible to the Committee to list them. If this kind of pressure arises, presumably they will not be listed and information which is important to those interested in the matter would not be available. I hope that the Committee's problem will be appreciated in this situation.

Mr. Lee: What my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian


(Mr. Mackintosh) said may be of some assistance. Nevertheless, the fact is that we are here having to mix up specific legislative proposals, some of which I should have thought would each merit individual debates of the length we are allocating to the whole lot together. It makes an interesting contrast to the situation on the Finance Bill where we spent a whole day reaching Clause 14 with two further days next week and perhaps more to come. There was a long debate on one amendment yet here we are telescoping all these matters into one debate and discussing the general principles too. How can we give proper justice to this situation? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the matter and stop treating the House like a sausage machine for Common Market legislation?

Mr. Speaker: All these matters have been raised as points of order. Perhaps fortunately for the Chair, they are not points of order.

Mr. Peart: Our debate this evening on the European Commission's proposals for the common agricultural prices for 1975–76 is very well timed. I was in Brussels this week and I shall be there again on Monday and Tuesday of the coming week. We therefore know broadly the views of other member States. The Council now intends, if at all possible, to reach decisions on the Commission's proposals at its meeting next week.
I shall listen most carefully to the speeches tonight. As hon. Members know I was the first Minister to appear before the Scrutiny Committee and I participated twice there, and similar regulations have been discussed on a previous occasion. Naturally I am anxious to inform colleagues about matters which are important and so I should like to outline our main views and objectives in the negotiations in Brussels. However, the House will recognise that I would not wish to be drawn too far in discussing our final position on some of the negotiating issues. A Minister has to judge issues sometimes on the spot when negotiating and I know that my colleagues and others would not want to shackle a Minister who is involved in very difficult negotiations in Brussels.
The Commission's proposals cover a wide range of products from milk to sunflower

seed. Some proposals are complex. They are set out in full in the 190-page document presented by the Commission. This has been made available to the House, together with an explanatory memorandum provided by my Ministry. I do not think that it would be sensible for me this evening to go through all the items in the Commission's documents. Instead I will try to pick out the main features as I see them. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary who was with me in Brussels will reply to the debate. I know that many hon. Members would like to make contributions and I shall try to make my speech much shorter than the one I made in the last debate.
First there is the question of the criteria for prices. The Commission makes clear that its price proposals are based on the costs and output of modern efficient farms and take account of the expected supply and demand for each product. We attach importance to this. In my speech to the Council on 18th June on our renegotiation objectives I asked for this approach in determining support prices. It is the best insurance over a period of time that the price changes will be fair to consumers as well as to producers. The Commission has provided full supporting information in its report on the agricultural situation in the Community, in Document R/3408/74.
I now come to the size of price increases proposed. Secondly, the Commission proposes that Community farm prices for 1975–76 should be increased on average by between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. I should emphasise that this does not imply that consumer prices will rise by this amount. Some common prices, such as the withdrawal prices for some horticultural products, are deliberately set well below market prices. Others, such as the intervention prices for the main cereals, have also recently been below the level of market prices. In addition, in the United Kingdom we are not yet applying most of the common prices at the full Community levels. Our prices for many products are determined by supply and demand in the commercial markets or by our guaranteed prices.
Thirdly—

Mr. John Biffen: rose—

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish the three main points. I may be coming to a point that I suspect he is interested in, as he raised it on a previous occasion.
Thirdly, the Commission proposes some changes in the representative rates of the currency of the Federal Republic of Germany, France and the Benelux countries. The effect of the Commission's present proposals would be that, instead of receiving price increases averaging 9 per cent. to 10 per cent. German farmers would receive price increases of about 4 per cent., Benelux farmers would receive about 7 per cent., and French farmers would receive about 13 per cent., expressed in their own currency. The Commission does not propose any change in the United Kingdom or Irish green pounds, since some changes were made last October.

Mr. Biffen: The Commission said that there would be an increase of 9 per cent. in average Community prices. That clearly reflects varying rates of increase for various agricultural commodities. If we relate that to the national United Kingdom situation, where the balance of various agricultural commodities will be rather different from the totality of the Community, what is the figure purely in respect of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Peart: I cannot say that until we discuss each individual product. It varies. It would be foolish of me at this stage, as I am still in the middle of negotiations, to try to give a specific figure. The Community figure is the one the hon. Gentleman has quoted. We have examined the effect of this on our position, but I would rather not give a figure tonight. I shall be only too pleased to give information to the House before I go to Brussels if I can.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The National Farmers' Union has suggested that the figure is 15 per cent. for this country. Does the right hon. Gentleman dissent from that?

Mr. Peart: I will not be drawn on that. As I have said, the Community prices should be increased on average by between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. [Interruption.] I am just giving a general assessment. I shall deal with each commodity. I have just returned from

Brussels. I have gone as far as I can go, but I should be delighted to give the House the fullest information. Hon. Members know that I have always reported to the House. I must go back to Brussels next week, and I think that hon. Members should allow me a little latitude.
Finally, the Commission has put forward two structural proposals. It seeks a decision in the price discussions on the implementation of the Mountainous and Less Favoured Areas Directive. It has also put forward a draft regulation on aid to young farmers, but, following discussion in the Council of Ministers, this may be deferred for further consideration. I know that some hon. Members have also expressed interest in the dairy herd conversion scheme, under which payments are made to milk producers who change under certain conditions from milk to beef production. The Commission proposed that the scheme should continue in 1975. We do not consider it to be appropriate at present and would wish to see it ended or at least suspended in 1975. I can tell the House that at its last meeting the Council of Ministers shared our view.
As the price proposals are the central part of the package—and I accept that—I should like to describe rather more fully what the Commission has in mind for some major commodities. The House may wish to bear in mind that there is continuing inflation in the Community and that some of these prices would not take effect for many months. They should still be in operation in the second half of 1975. For example, the new pig price would cover the period from November 1975 to October 1976.
I begin with the vegetable products. For cereals the Commission is proposing increases in the target prices of between 8 and 12 per cent. with the introduction of a single target price for maize and barley. There has recently been a slight weakening of wheat and barley prices in the United Kingdom, which will be welcome to livestock farmers. Our best estimate, however, is that, if the Commission's proposals were accepted, intervention purchases in the United Kingdom in 1975–76 would be unlikely.
For sugar the Commission recognises that the problem has been shortage of supply. It therefore proposes a higher


than average price increase of 16 per cent. for the minimum beet and intervention prices. Half the increase would be made on 1st February and half on 1st July. Sugar is one of the few products for which the United Kingdom is operating the full Community prices. The full benefit of the proposed price increase would therefore go to United Kingdom sugar beet producers.
For wine and tobacco, which are expensive régimes, the Commission proposes lower than average increases. For fresh fruit and vegetables the Commission has put forward an increase of 9 per cent. for apples and pears and 11 per cent. for other products, with a possibility of a further increase of 10 per cent. On withdrawal prices for glasshouse growers it also promises to make a further proposal later about the structure of the glasshouse sector.
On livestock products the Commission has had to pay particular attention to the difficulties of the Community's beef régime and to potential surpluses of butter or skimmed milk powder. For milk the Commission has proposed an increase of 6 per cent. in the target price from 1st February, with a further 4 per cent. in September. The Community's milk year would be brought forward and would begin on 1st February. There would also be a number of changes in subsidies. The coverage of the animal feed subsidy would be slightly widened. The price range within which this subsidy can be set would be raised. The maximum rate of the general consumer subsidy on butter would be raised but the contribution from Community funds would be unchanged.
On beef the Commission has made some steps—that is all that I say at this stage—in the direction which the United Kingdom has favoured in earlier discussions. The suggestion that member States would be able to decide at the beginning of the year whether or not to operate permanent intervention is at least a step in the right direction. While proposing an increase of 7 per cent. in the guide price, the Commission also envisages that the intervention price levels would not rise by the same percentage. The Commission also proposes headage payments, financed by the Community, of 30 units of account on adult male cattle.

On pigmeat the Commission wishes to see an increase of 11 per cent. in the basic price.
I think that I have described the more important proposals fully. I should like to indicate our approach to some of the main issues.

Mr. Neil Marten: Perhaps the Minister will clear up a point on the intervention system. In all these matters is the Community insisting on the intervention system or is there any leeway to go over to the guarantee system?

Mr. Peart: We have only had two days since my opening speech at the Community. In the first discussion that took place on beef and the general position we merely deployed our arguments. I deployed my position and my criticisms of permanent intervention as a means of support. I have always stressed that position. I accepted some small amount of support buying. It is operating in some other commodities in the United Kingdom apart from beef. We have had the opening skirmish. The main negotiations will take place next week. I have a feeling that it will take some time before we finally get round to the real issues which are important to the United Kingdom.
In price-fixing discussions we must keep a balance as between the needs of our producers and our consumers. I have stressed this over and over again. The need for price increases must be demonstrated. We have also to make sure that the food is produced. 1974 was a difficult year for some farmers and growers. [Interruption.] It was a difficult year throughout the Community and in countries outside it. The imbalance between the livestock and arable sector has been serious. It is perhaps an understatement to say that 1974 was a difficult year for farmers.
There were large increases in costs. Certainly for some livestock producers, market returns did not keep pace. In this country we have had to introduce a number of special measures of aid. There are strong arguments for giving producers the assurance of adequate support and avoiding, as far as possible, ad hoc measures.
We believe also that these discussions on common prices may provide some


room for progress towards our renegotiation objectives. Thus on beef, we believe there is an opportunity now for the Community to have a régime which would allow members to move away, if they wish, from dependence on intervention buying.

Mr. Lee: rose—

Mr. Peart: I will gladly give way, but I am trying to be helpful and this is very technical information. I do not want to monopolise the discussion because I suspect many hon. Members will want to speak. Hon. Members know my views because I have deployed them previously. I believe that support buying as a measure of last resort is something that might be accepted. This is a matter of negotiation.
For member States which take this view, an alternative and effective means of support is essential. I have made clear that we would like to see some form of variable premium, such as I secured for this country at the November Council. This would be widely welcomed by United Kingdom cattle producers, who would have an assured return. Consumers would also benefit substantially because in times of surplus prices would be free to fall to the fairly low support buying level. We recognise that some arrangement would be needed so that the cost to Community or national funds was not open-ended.
In general, we shall try to seek a balance between our interest in low consumer prices and the need for sufficient incentives for producers. For sugar, although the best price increase proposed is greater than average, we think that it is fully justified. For cereals, we recognise the cost increases which cereal producers in the Community have faced but must have regard to the interest of our livestock producers in the cost of feed.
With milk and milk products, some small increase in the Community's target price for milk may be justified. We support the Commission's proposal that any increase should be spread over two stages. The stock of butter in the Community is now low. We must continue to guard against the reappearance of a surplus. The Commission has rightly recognised the need to strengthen the link between

milk producers and their markets. We are continuing to explore other ways of achieving restraint on potential surpluses.
As for the Commission's monetary and structural proposals, we think it right that the Community should contribute to the support and development of agriculture in the hills. We would therefore like to see progress on the implementation of the Mountainous and Less Favoured Areas Directive. We are doubtful about including the proposed aid for young farmers in the price package. This proposal needs further study and we would prefer to defer a decision on it until later. We have made clear that we do not favour a further change in sterling's representative rate so soon after last October's change.
It will not be easy for the Council of Ministers to reach agreement on this large and very complicated package. We need to be flexible. We should not rule out for some producers the possibility of direct aid rather than total reliance on end prices. That is one reason why I attach importance to securing a new and better régime for beef.
In the on-going business of the Community we have already made progress towards the adjustment of the operation of the common agricultural policy. I hope that we shall continue to do so in the consideration of this price package and that the price changes will be fair to both producers and consumers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Mr. Scott-Hopkins.

Mr. Norman Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not appropriate for the amendment to be moved now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In due course, when the hon. Member catches my eye, that amendment will be moved, but at this juncture it is more appropriate that the Opposition should be able to reply to the Minister. Mr. Scott-Hopkins.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I agree with the Minister that the debate has been well-timed. He has come back from Brussels where he was this week engaged in preliminary negotiations, and I have come back today


from Luxembourg where we have been debating the document that is before us tonight. I heard the President of the Council of Ministers, the Irish Minister of Agriculture and the Commissioner explain in detail the proposals contained in the document. Both wish to restore confidence to the industry.
The right hon. Gentleman is right in saying that he is in for difficult negotiations next week. He may, indeed, not be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion and may have to continue the negotiations at a later date. I hope that he and his colleagues will be able to conclude the negotiations before the beginning of February because much hinges upon that date.
The right hon. Gentleman gave the House the main details of the Commission's proposals. I will only highlight one or two of the important matters. It is essential to understand the basis on which the proposals are made. For the first time, rightly, the Commission is taking a two-year not a four-year basis of costs and prices, instead of a one-year basis as we do. The Commission has taken 1973 and 1974 and on that basis has come forward with the proposal for the 9·7 per cent. average increase throughout the Community.
There is some dispute over the Commission's figures and those of the farming organisations here and throughout Europe, but after today's debate in the European Parliament it looks as though that disagreement between the two sides will be resolved at a meeting in the near future.
Costs have increased greatly, and my view is that the increases in costs in 1974 have not been sufficiently weighted in the various proposals which have come forward. Equal weight has been given to the cost increases in 1973, and in addition the 1974 price increases have been set against the cost increases. Nevertheless, the increase will be 9.7 per cent. on average throughout the Community.
I was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman was not as willing as he might have been to say what he thought would be the increase for the United Kingdom. I am not inhibited in quite the same way. The figure given to me by the Commissioner this afternoon for the the average increase in the United Kingdom is just over 12 per cent. if after the

negotiations the proposals are adopted exactly as they stand in the document. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, there is considerable scope for negotiation, and of course, here one is only talking about the starting figure, which at the moment, on the Commission's estimate for the United Kingdom, is just over 12 per cent.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to tell us what the Commission says our prices should increase by. By how much does the hon. Gentleman think, even on the most optimistic basis, that could be mitigated?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was stating what the nearest estimate is as the proposals stand, but it is impossible for me to give any firm conclusion, since the negotiations are still only in their preliminary stage. In any case, I do not take part in the negotiations, so it would be useless for me to give a figure.
But one or two factors have emerged. For instance, two areas vitally concerned are the meat and milk sections of the livestock sector of our industry, which has been going through a very difficult time. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that he only envisages a very small increase for the dairy farmer and is satisfied with having it in two bites—on 1st February and in September, at six and four per cent. respectively. I am surprised that he is prepared to accept that, because it was my view and the view of colleagues at the European Parliament today that it would not be sufficient—and not only for our farmers—bearing in mind that we have in effect, already borrowed from these two increases by the price increases given in October and November last year. We have, in practice, borrowed them from the increase which is still to be negotiated.
If we stick to the 6 per cent. from 1st February and the 4 per cent. in September, there might well be no room for manœuvre by the right hon. Gentleman when our own price review comes. If we could link the two together, however, although it would mean increased cost to the FEOGA funds of 120 million units of account, it would be advantageous to us.
In discussing the beef sector, I think the right hon. Gentleman was a little coy about the proposals and what he accepted at the last negotiations, which took place


before Christmas—a standing intervention at 87 per cent. of the guide prices. Over and above that, he was authorised, rightly, to bring in a variable payment to our beef farmers for the clean cattle which were to be put through the market.
I gathered from the speeches of the Chairman of the Council of Ministers and of the Commissioner for Agriculture today that there is movement as far as they are concerned in the acceptance of this idea that we should not rest alone on the intervention mechanism—the price mechanism, in other words—to support beef and other livestock farmers in the coming years. They are thinking—and these proposals virtually say so—of a more flexible approach outside the price mechanism.

Mr. Marten: What does my hon. Friend think they have in mind?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I think they have in mind a type of variable payment over and above what is known as the standing intervention. The right hon. Gentleman rejected mandatory intervention and optional intervention at 91 per cent. and 93 per cent. of the guideline price. He accepted standing intervention, which is 87 per cent. of the guideline price.

Mr. Peart: In the case of the new negotiations, at this stage I have accepted nothing.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I was referring to the negotiations in which the Minister took part before Christmas last year, when standing intervention was accepted. That is the situation now.

Mr. Pearl: Temporarily.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Temporarily—until the negotiations are concluded. Until those negotiations are concluded that is the situation, which seems to find general acceptance by the Commissioner and the Commission. However, I understand from colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman that the Council of Ministers has a more flexible approach towards a variable payment.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Premium?

Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Premium, if my hon. Friend wishes. I was careful not to put any tag on it.
This system is an advance which operates to the advantage of our livestock producers in the beef and dairy sectors.
I was glad that the Minister said that he wished to suspend from 1st July 1975 the existing scheme for farmers to change from milk to beef, although it is the view of the Commission that it is cheaper to run this scheme than to buy intervention milk and milk products and pay the storage costs. I support the Minister's view that it is right to suspend the scheme this year.
Turning to horticulture, I was told today that between 1st March and 1st July the Commissioner would put forward to the Minister extra proposals concerning first general aid to be given to glasshouse growers and a proposal regarding energy in respect of the increased price of oil, two subjects about which anxiety is felt by many growers. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade his colleagues to accept those proposals, although I do not expect he will have much difficulty in doing so.
I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman turned down the idea of a very small amount of aid for the farmers of under 40 years of age. A proposal was made for a special scheme, under the auspices of Directive 159, under which they should receive a certain assistance. That is a section of the farming population which could well do with such help. It would be very good for them to receive funds, small though they may be, from FEOGA. I regret that, before the negotiations have got off the ground, the Minister seems to think that the scheme is unacceptable.
I hope that the outline of these proposals—the balance between the grain and livestock and the milk and beef sectors—is broadly acceptable. It will be necessary to negotiate increases in some sectors. For example, I do not think it is right to separate the price increases proposed to put the milk and sugar beet increases into two sections. I think it would be preferable that they should be lumped into one increase in February. Broadly I think that the 12 per cent. average price increase is about right with notable exceptions, as it will cause no more than a 0·66 per cent. rise in the cost of living.
I hope that the proposals of the Commission, which the Minister has put before the House, will be generally acceptable, as a basis for negotiation.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I beg to move at the end of the Question to add
'but declines to approve proposals for Regulations still subject to possible and unforeseeable alteration by the Council of Ministers before enactment, which would raise even further the price of a number of major foodstuffs, including milk, butter, pigmeat and beef, and which accepts the principle of permanent intervention buying of beef by member states including the United Kingdom'.
I make one preliminary point. It is difficult for hon. Members of this House, when they are attempting to amend motions by the Government, to find next day that the motions they seek to amend have been themselves amended overnight. Two additional sets of documents have been added to the motion to which hon. Members have already put down an amendment—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) will no doubt have an opportunity to make his own speech in due time.
I am not arguing whether the Government's action materially affects the situation, but it may do. However, it is a gross abuse of the procedures of this House. I blame no one individual for that. I think that it is the position in which this House finds itself that is the difficulty.
I get no great pleasure when I hear a Minister unable to give an estimate of costs, and then another hon. Member comes back from the European Parliament to give the House an estimate which he has gained from a commissioner. There is no pleasure in that for any of us.

Mr. Peart: I hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to me. I was frank with the House. I cannot reveal price figures when I am negotiating.

Mr. Buchan: I understand. My right hon. Friend is a very good fellow, but he is over-sensitive. I said that no individual was to be blamed—unless it be those who brought us into the Market.
I thought that the most chilling comment in this House today was uttered by

my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. In recognising our difficulties in coping with directives and the rest from the Community, he said that other Parliaments in Western Europe were in an even worse position. It is a terrifying situation. If Ministers are coming from other countries with less guidance from their home Parliaments and Assemblies than ours are getting, it is a sad day for democracy not only in Britain but in the other countries of Western Europe. I think that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House recognises this, because he has referred again and again to the effect that this enforced method of dealing with European legislation has upon the democratic procedures of this House. If the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian has listened to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he will have heard this on almost every occasion that my right hon. Friend has had to explain the loss of sovereignty and to express his regrets about it.
So we have the position where we have to discuss the whole of the future year in agriculture in 1½ hours on a Thursday night, and we all know how important Thursday nights are to hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, with the possible exceptions of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian and myself.
The Government have put down a motion to "take note", and I have moved a reasoned amendment to it. There seems to be an objection to regarding it as a reasoned amendment, although I do not accept that a reasoned amendment is necessarily always a negativing amendment. But if there is objection, let the Government explain why they want the House to take note rather than to approve. The only reason can be that they do not approve, otherwise they would say that they approve. So let us take the gloss provided by the amendment as an explanation of the Government's attitude, and let them accept the amendment.
Some months ago, when I was sitting alongside my right hon. Friend, he faced an Opposition motion of censure. In the dying seconds of the debate, he neatly side-stepped the issue by accepting the motion. I waited patiently to hear him do the same this evening. Unfortunately,


I waited in vain. But I hope that he will accept the amendment, for several reasons.
There is a tendency in Brussels, which is exemplified by the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that there is even less control over the Council of Ministers than we have, to recognise that any proposal which is not challenged in this House carries the endorsement of this House. Surely the amendment would strengthen the hands of our Ministers, who clearly do not like the common agricultural policy and are fighting against its worst excesses. I would have hoped that they would accept it for that reason.
The amendment is in three parts—like Gaul, which has not always been helpful in these matters in recent years. The first is a constitutional point. It is difficult for the House of Commons to approve regulations and draft proposals when, next week, they may emerge from discussions between people in another place, who are badly mandated by their Parliament, in a totally different form. Alterations are not only possible but unforeseeable.
Two possible deals are obvious—on sugar and beef. In the long watches of the night, when, if I understand the French Press Agency properly, Ministers sometimes take bets in champagne as to what will emerge at the end—

Mr. Peart: What?

Mr. Buchan: If my right hon. Friend would read the Agence Presse d'Europe dispatch of 22nd October, he would understand my reference.
The possible and unforeseeable alteration if a deal is made may be very serious; it may affect the decision of hon. Members who had accepted the "take note" motion in good faith. There are indications that this may happen. Clearly my right hon. Friends are fighting hard in Brussels on both these difficult questions.
The second part of the amendment is the practical one, that we are dealing with the prices of our foodstuffs and the returns to our farmers for the next 12 months. This debate is even more important than any we might have on the annual price review. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)

hoped that something might happen to give us a little leeway in the annual price review. Once these things are discussed in Brussels next week or the week after, there will not be much leeway for our own national aids to be developed.
The third part of the amendment is a most important matter of principle. Some have regarded it as a moral principle: certainly it is highly important. This is the whole question of the intervention buying of beef. I do not believe that we have yet started seriously on a fundamental renegotiation of the common agricultural policy. My right hon. Friend has done well in fighting hard for certain ameliorative measures, but we have yet to achieve the fundamental renegotiation outlined in the manifesto. Incidentally, I thought that we might have seen more members of the Manifesto Group here tonight. I take it from the presence of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian that they intend to vote, presumably for the amendment.
There is an important matter of principle here involving our manifesto decisions. I do not believe, as I said, that we have yet embarked on this part of the negotiations, but in one major matter, my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Peart: May I—

Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend should not jump up quite so soon: I am about to say something nice about him. In the first week or two of negotiations, he said: "We will not have intervention." That was the one great step. So it was with immense sadness that, in November, we learned that we were accepting the principle of intervention. Would my right hon. Friend like to intervene now, because I shall be developing this point.

Mr. Peart: I only wanted to say that I fought the election on the manifesto, just as my hon. Friend did. Talking about intervention, it said—

Mr. Buchan: Which one is this?

Mr. Peart: The October one and the February one. Both of them: I am consistent. The manifesto states:
Labour insists that there must be a new approach, with a clear emphasis on national aids, and that we must be able to provide suitable guarantees to our farmers".
I do not depart from that.

Mr. Buchanan: I agree with every word of that. The October manifesto referred back to the February manifesto, which referred to the programme for Britain, listing a number of points which would be involved in the renegotiation. Whenever I went to the Ministry, I took a dozen copies with me and every time I met a civil servant who had not read the document I presented him with a copy. I hope that the practice is continuing in the Ministry in my absence.
We were told in November that we had gained that which we had sought for so long—a deficiency payments structure. In return we accepted a temporary measure of intervention, but we were told that it would not matter because the price was too low for anybody to bother to intervene. The price was so low that I was highly suspicious. I could not imagine the Common Market introducing it without having an ulterior motive. I was right. I understand that 14 tons is the amount of beef which has gone into intervention.
The distinguished agricultural correspondent of the Scotsman—a paper which is a strong friend of the Common Market—under the heading
Mr. Peart will have a hard struggle to keep the scheme",
said:
He"—
the Minister—
may now be hoist on his own premium as his fellow Ministers
in the Council
may insist he has accepted the principle of intervention which from February until November of last year he refused to do, and should now accept it completely. The U.K. answer is likely to be that if the Brussels Commission proposals … for a new beef regime are accepted, the EEC could have a beef 'mountain' of about 800,000 tons by the end of this year. If Britain is forced to accept intervention buying, that is, beef will be bought by EEC funds and put in cold storage … they alone could have a beef 'mountain' of 190,000 tons at the end of 1975".
As other commentators have said, the problem is that the principle of intervention has been given, and once we give away a principle it is 10 times more difficult to hold the line.
It is therefore important that the amendment should be passed. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister wants to resist intervention buying. I think that he wants to introduce a deficiency payments scheme. The Financial Times also thinks that—I am very catholic in my reading. It states:
For the UK, Dr. Gavin Strang, Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, stressed … the great importance which the Government attached to its beef proposals. He said that even if the Community as a whole did not adopt the variable premiums option, Britain itself must be allowed to. Mr. Pierre Lardinois … quarrelled with the British figures. … The Danes attacked the very principle of paying farmers direct premiums".
Country after country has attacked that principle. We shall be in difficulty unless we can strengthen the Minister's hand.
The second important item to which I refer is cereals. The great problem which British agriculture has faced since this country entered the EEC is the considerable imbalance between high priced cereals and low priced livestock. Now an opening has occurred. We are told that we are doing well because we are in the Common Market. We have been told that the Common Market has helped to keep prices low. That is true, because of the world supply and demand situation, in the last year or two. Therefore, why does it not drop the levy system?
The Financial Times states:
The British request for cheaper access to the North American hard wheat would be against Community competition rules, according to Mr. Lardinois. He declared that the UK had enjoyed the benefits of cereal imports from the rest of the EEC at below world prices for some time. He felt it was unreasonable for Britain to ask for this concession just because world prices were now showing signs of easing.
We are now in the Market. The manifesto stated that we must have unlimited access to cheap world foodstuffs. The Common Market Commissioners say "No". That is the final reason why the motion must be accepted. If it is not accepted, I must ask for a vote of this House to strengthen my right hon. Friend's hand in his discussions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Before calling the next speaker, I remind the House that the time is limited and that this debate is due to finish at 11.46 p.m.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I shall be brief and will speak fairly fast.
Again, I declare an interest as a farmer. I welcome the debate, because these are important issues. As a member of the Select Committee on Secondary Legislation I had a part in bringing these matters to the House. These proposals are important and should be discussed here. I regret that we are unable to debate them at greater length.
I pay tribute to Sir Henry Plumb who has been made the president of COPA. I think that the House should welcome his appointment as a real step forward.
I am prepared to take note of these documents, but I do not accept their implications. Serious matters are involved. I hope that the Minister will note that some of us are prepared to take note of the documents, but that we are not prepared to accept all that is in them.
Document No. R/3470/74 relates to the conversion of dairy cow herds to meat production. I am not prepared to accept that scheme. I have never encouraged any farmer to convert from milk to beef. Why? Because that would create a grave distortion in the whole pattern of our agricultural production. We have a shortage of milk and excess of beef production in this country. Therefore, it is ludicrous to encourage farmers to move out of milk and into beef production. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not continue with that scheme.
I should like to give the Community a little advice—not that it will listen to me. However, if the Community were to put its own house in order regarding milk production—for example, if it had a Milk Marketing Board which encouraged the consumption of liquid milk—its farmers would not be so keen to produce milk only for the manufacture of butter and other products. If the Community were to put its own house in order, it would not need this scheme. I feel very strongly on this subject.
Turning to Document No. R/3358/74, again I take note of the Commission's proposals, but frankly they are not acceptable to me. They are not in the interests of the consumer, which is vital. The simple fact is that if we want food, we must ensure that the farmers'

increased costs are covered. If not, we shall not get the food produced.
What are the facts. Over the last two years the cost of feeds for farm animals has risen by 82 per cent., fertiliser by 70 per cent., minimum wages by 70 per cent.—and that is not enough—and the cost of machinery has risen by 39 per cent. Bank base rate has risen by 60 per cent., and the cost of buildings has risen by 54 per cent. What has the farmer got in return? The price of fat cattle is down by 6 per cent., milk is up by 29 per cent., and wheat is up by 69 per cent. One can appreciate, therefore, that the increase in prices that the British farmer has received does not cover the increased costs. This is a simple fact of life. If the consumers in this country want food production, these increased costs must be covered.
Let us look at the proposals. A 9 per cent overall increase is suggested by the Commission. The overall costs increase was 20·9 per cent. in 1974. Therefore, we have a serious problem here. We shall have a reduction in food production unless these costs are covered. It is important, therefore, that we go for at least a 15 per cent. overall increase in the end price for producers. It is not necessary to give as much as the Commission want on beef, but I believe that the prices of the other commodities certainly need to be increased to make an overall increase of 15 per cent.
Following those few remarks, I should like to remind the Minister that I for one take note of the proposals and I shall not vote against them, but much of the content of the proposals is wrong. I hope that the Minister will take note of at least what I am saying.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: In regard to the point of order on which I spoke earlier in the debate, I am a little surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) and others have raised as objections in the debate the fact that two extra documents were added by the Scrutiny Committee to the document on prices which we are now considering. The position of the Scrutiny Committee on Tuesday afternoon was that it had received two further documents, one of which was purely explanatory. This one was purely a review, an


information account, of agriculture in the Community over the past year. The question was, would it be helpful to hon. Members tonight to have their attention drawn to this particular point? There is no question of hon. Members tonight being asked to approve a massive item of legislation. Are those who object seriously suggesting that the Scrutiny Committee should not draw to the attention of the House what is purely an explanatory document designed to help hon. Members in their treatment of the question? It is rather a spurious point which has been made.

Mr. Buchan: rose—

Mr. Mackintosh: The hon. Gentleman has made his speech. The point is that this is a helpful document and the question was whether it should be drawn to the attention of hon. Members. That is all that we are doing. It is the task of the Scrutiny Committee to add in documents which are useful to Members.

Mr. Lee: Answer the motion.

Mr. Mackintosh: I am turning to the particular issue before the House.
As hon. Members know, what we are considering is an overall proposal by the Commission to raise prices in Europe by an average of about 9 per cent. In this country it is estimated that this would mean that an increase of about 12 per cent. will be produced. Looking at the overall interests of consumers, farmers and taxpayers—the three crucial elements—the question we must ask ourselves is by how much would we in this country have increased the prices of these agricultural products had we been indulging in a price review for this country alone outside the EEC; that is, if today we had our own price review as we had before 1973. The mix would be different. We might well have had a different mix. But we should have had the same fundamental interests when we faced soaring costs for our farmers. We should not, at least, drive a number of them bankrupt and ruin our own agricultural industry, just as we have conceded price increases for many other industries for the same reason.
It is totally unfair to suggest that were we out of the Common Market there would be no increases in the basic prices to cover the essential costs of the farming

industry. We are interested in the consumer but not in bankrupting an essential element of our agricultural industry—our domestic producers of foodstuffs,
Turning to the particular mix on this question, my point is that farmers have had a very difficult year in livestock. Perhaps the cereal price increase proposed is too big for this country. I take a middle view about milk. Disagreeing with the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), I think that the livestock increase is a little too small, because producers are in a very difficult position.
I shall be very interested when my right hon. Friend the Minister comes to deal with sheep, which are completely outside the Common Market and for which there is no regulation and we have to have our own individual price review. What will he do about the guarantee price on sheep? Will he not increase it?
Looking at marginal farms and working farmers in my constituency, I find that a 10p rise on sheep is needed if these men are to be kept in business. That is a fundamental fact of the situation.
It is interesting to compare this with the situation inside the Common Market on livestock which is only a reflection on a wider scale of the problems of farming we are seeing in this country today. There is a great deal of exaggeration on the part of anti-marketeers who seem to deny the need for any increase in agricultural prices. The Minister is putting up a very good struggle for a change in the beef régime in the EEC. I should like to see a target price and a variable premium on beef to bring prices for the producer up to the target price. This variable premium would alter depending on the market price as opposed to the fixed premium system in use at the present time. On this question, we must recognise two things. First, this system might be more expensive to Britain across the exchanges than the present one. That is a point that hon. Members have not always considered. The second is that many countries find it very difficult to work such a variable levy on a purely administrative basis. This is a complex and costly method of support for agriculture. The cost of administering it is enormous. The virtues of a guaranteed price system are not absolute and I do not understand the almost theological


basis of the opposition to intervention buying. It is true that it does not work if the market is saturated. It only works if there is a marginal area supply of the market and that is why we must change the structure of agricultural support and for that reason I welcome the Minister's attitude in his fight for some change in the beef régime in Europe.
I now turn to the final issue which has been raised, that is the sovereignty of this Parliament. This is the first time in nine years in the House that I have been able to debate the determination of agricultural prices before they have been settled. I can remember being hauled up as a delinquent back-bench MP before my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew-shire, West (Mr. Buchan) who, as a junior Minister said—"You cannot come talking to me about the prices of various products before the annual price review is settled with the NFU. I am not allowed to discuss this with you, and you know that you are not allowed to speak about it and that Parliament is not allowed to debate it." Now I am told that the fact that we can have this preliminary debate is a great deprivation of Parliament's sovereignty when I can now put my case to the Minister and tell him that I want 10p on sheep and the basic price of beef to rise from £17 to £22 or £23 per live hundredweight. I can tell him that before the negotiations begin, and for that I am very pleased—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] I do not want any more of this humbug that we have lost sovereignty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] This is a direct gain of freedom for back benchers. We have never been able to debate this matter before the review has been determined and I am delighted to have this opportunity of supporting my right hon. Friend the Minister.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I have been looking carefully at proposal No. 40 and I find that it is a proposal to pay units of account varying between 1,000 and 400 per annum to farmers under 40 years of age. This is a gross discrimination against farmers in the Community and for the first time we have a document which discriminates on grounds of age. Hon. Members should

bear in mind that a farmer of 40 still has 25 years to go before he reaches retirement.
Furthermore, proposals 32 and 34 provide for the move from dairy herds and the production of milk to the production of beef. We have been doing this over the past few years and it has been causing the most serious problems in the marketing of beef. It has increased the number of beef cattle on the market and lowered prices to farmers, but the prices paid by the housewife have not fallen in that period. It has contributed largely in many parts of the country to the present difficulties of beef farmers.
We also find within it the introduction of a flat-rate headage premium on adult male animals for slaughter—a new departure for British farming. Any sort of subsidy on beef was always paid to all cattle, regardless of sex. I suppose that we must now order cows to produce only male calves, a most difficult thing to ask of them.
Furthermore, it is stated that intervention has not by itself maintained producers' prices. I am the first to agree, but the money put into headage payments over the past 12 months was thrown into a bottomless pit. It did practically no good to the producer, and even less to the housewife. There is little show of a downward trend in the price of beef to the housewife in the past year. That is what the amendment is about. Those hon. Members who support the amendment are complaining that the proposals will not decrease prices but rather increase them.
Not only will the proposals increase prices to the housewife in the shop, but on past showing they will be of no benefit to the farmer, and it is with the farming community that I am principally concerned.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We have had a useful and unusual debate. I regret that, as is inevitable in these debates after 10 o'clock, we do not have more time. One rarely speaks in such a debate without having to moan about not having more time.
However, this has been a unique opportunity for the House to discuss the proposals presented by the Commission to


the Council of Ministers. It is a good precedent. I endorse what the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) said. I well remember when years ago he and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) sat on the Select Committee on Agriculture, which was so early wound up by the present Minister. We made inquiries into the workings of the Price Review and recommended that the House should be able to discuss the proposals before they were presented as decisions.

Mr. Peart: I was the first Minister to attend a Select Committee of that kind. The hon. Gentleman knows that it was accepted that the committee would be for an experimental period. It was necessary later to introduce other Select Committees, which I did. In a speech in the House I said that there would be a time when we would have to recreate some of the older committees.

Mr. Jopling: I am short of time—

Mr. Peart: And short of memory.

Mr. Jopling: My memory does not fail me. The recommendation of that Committee of seven years or so ago, that we should debate these matters, has come to fruition tonight. That shows that the recommendation was right, that we were on the right lines and should have been allowed to continue our work, which was carried out so successfully.
The debate has clearly shown the shortcomings of the documents we are discussing. I hope that what has been said tonight will be taken by the Minister as a warning shot about the impact of some of the price rises suggested by the Commission, if the Minister does not fight for necessary improvements in some of them.
The debate has been a useful exercise. There are difficult negotiations ahead, and I hope that it will have strengthened the Minister's hand in them.
My hon. Friend told us that the up-to-the-minute news from Luxembourg was that M. Lardinois had said that the purpose of these proposals was to increase farm prices by 12 per cent. I have a good deal of sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills). At a time when this country faces major balance of payments problems, it is essential that during

the next year the agriculture industry should be able to recoup the increased costs that have been imposed upon it.
The Minister's duty when he deals with these proposals and with the domestic price review that will follow is to make sure that the production of farm produce in this country is increased. We cannot have the situation that price increases proposed by the Commission do not cover increased costs, because if we do it will mean, as surely as anything could, that we shall suffer from shortages of food in the years to come.
I was glad to hear a number of my hon. Friends say that there would be little objection to the Government's agreeing to the suspension of the scheme to encourage milk farmers to move into beef production. I doubt whether there will be much opposition from the Conservative benches if the Minister ultimately agrees to that.
Now I turn to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West (Mr. Buchan). I thought that he displayed the most extraordinary attitude both in the drafting of the amendment and in the way in which he moved it. I am astonished that anyone who ever held office in the Ministry of Agriculture should have made the speech that he did and drafted an amendment in these terms.
The hon. Gentleman says in the amendment that he is opposed to the proposed rises in the prices of foodstuffs, including milk, butter, pigmeat and beef. How blind can he be? How unbelievably stupid can he be, after his experience at the Ministry of Agriculture? The hon. Gentleman must know that if we want home-grown food—which above all we do—we must provide the incentive to farmers to make sure that it is produced. The amendment would mean that there would not be the food on shopkeepers' shelves in a year or two.

Mr. Buchan: As always there is a simple explanation to an extraordinary statement. Has it never struck the hon. Gentleman, despite all his years in this House, that there is an alternative method of supporting farmers, in addition to the end price? That is what we are struggling for in Brussels, to have a support system other than an end price. That is the simple explanation.

Mr. Jopling: For a number of years, many of us on the Conservative benches have argued for a system of deficiency payments and guaranteed prices as the long-term method of getting increased expansion in the agriculture industry. I was astonished to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Renfrewshire, West.

Mr. Mackintosh: rose—

Mr. Jopling: I am sorry, but I must allow time for the Minister to reply to the debate.
I am totally opposed, as I am sure my hon. Friends on this side of the House are, to what is contained in the amendment. This seems to be a squabble between the Government and the lunatic fringe on the Left wing of the Labour Party, and I could not advise my hon. Friends to get involved in this rather squalid squabble.
I am not opposed to taking note of these documents. We have fired a warning shot across the Minister's bows. He knows that many of us feel he has to do better than this in many instances. I hope he will understand that.
The Minister knows that he has a great deal of work to do, and it will be difficult. We would not dream of voting against taking note, although we feel that in some instances these price increases are not enough. I hope that the Minister knows, however, that if he fails, we reserve the right to vote against these price rises later when we see the final outcome.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Strang.

Mr. David Stoddart: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I should like to raise with you the question of the amount of time which you have allowed back-bench Members to have in this debate. I have checked the timings. By the time the debate has finished, Front Bench speakers will have taken 50 minutes, leaving only 40 minutes for back-bench speakers. The back-bench Members who have spoken, including the mover of the amendment, have been very good indeed. They have restricted their speeches. I think that the inordinate length of time that the Front Benches have taken is a negation of democracy and certainly in this instance is very much resented by back-bench Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker: That is not really a matter for me. Should it be suggested, however, that I should accept a proposition "That the Question be now put", I will, of course, take account of what the hon. Member has said.

11.36 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Stoddart) will agree that the one person who will not take an inordinate time in this debate is myself. In the time which remains, I shall try to deal with some of the points which have been raised.
My right hon. Friend the Minister said at the start of the debate that he was looking forward to hearing the views that Members would express. We have certainly heard tonight a considerable diversity of views, and I know that my right hon. Friend will reflect seriously on everything that has been said.
I must, however, emphasise, albeit briefly, that we are in the middle of negotiations on this matter. Just as when a trade union official goes into negotiations to try to get a £20-a-week increase for his members, he does not spell out in advance any fall-back position, I am sure that my hon. Friends will not expect me to spell out in this debate either the absolute conclusions which we intend to achieve or fall-back positions. What is important is that objectives which the Government intend to pursue and the results which they come out with at the end of the day.
I should like to take up the question of prices. Some hon. Members want higher prices and others want lower prices. The point was made at an early stage by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and others that the Government should give an estimate of the increase in prices in the United Kingdom. I shall merely try to illustrate to them just how difficult this is by pointing out, for example, that in the case of cereals we do not know what the price will be in six months' time because, as the hon. Member knows, the world market price of cereals is higher than the guide price. Similarly with milk, we can agree with the guide price, but what is important is our own position and what the United Kingdom guaranteed price will be.
Having said that, I accept that these increases in guide prices will have an effect on the United Kingdom prices, and at the end of the day what matters is the result which my right hon. Friend comes out with in the negotiations. May I, however, make one or two brief points, particularly concerning—

Mr. Biffen: I appreciate the difficulty that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. Can he suggest, however, how Commissioner Lardinois was able to over-come these obstacles and give the figure which he did to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins)?

Mr. Strang: The confusion is that hon. Members basically want to know the effect that these prices will have on the United Kingdom, and in particular my hon. Friends are concerned about the effect that the prices will have on the consumer. We cannot give these prices.
I want to emphasise this point about prices. The situation vis-à-vis the relationship between EEC and world prices has been transformed immeasurably since we entered the Market in 1972. These are facts which we must face. We must accept their implications. It is not simply in the case of sugar that we have had a spectacular change in relationship between EEC and world prices. In cereals also we have a situation that in 1972—[AN HON. MEMBER: "It is changing."] But it has to move a long way before we get back to the position where EEC prices of cereals are 50 per cent. higher than world prices. At present they are 60 per cent. of the world price. I do not want to spend a lot of time arguing about the general level of prices. I want to come to the specific points that have been made on intervention. I think that my hon. Friends will agree that that is the nub of the argument.
I reaffirm our total opposition to traditional intervention as practised by the Community. It is true, as the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) acknowledged, that the EEC's proposals go some way in our direction. They give us the right to opt out of intervention. It is true that they introduce on a permanent basis flat rate head-age payments for cattle. But they do not go nearly far enough. The main

objective of my right hon. Friend will be to secure a situation in which we shall have the option to opt out of permanent intervention and to make the variable premium a permanent feature of our beef régime.
When we are talking about intervention, let us not forget that over the years we have accepted the principle of support buying or intervention in this country. For example, we have an effectively managed potato market. My hon. Friends know as well as I do that we bought potatoes off the market by support buying in 1971. At that time we spent a substantial amount of money on support buying. Half of the potatoes went to animals and the other half were destroyed.
What we are now discussing in terms of beef is just the same as the situation after the great fiasco of 1961 when we had to accept that we must put some limit on Exchequer liability—namely, the liability on public funds. If we get a permanent variable premium or a permanent deficiency payment we must have some means of putting a limit on the liability to public funds. We have not ruled out limited support buying as a last resort. That is what we are talking about. Let us be clear about that.
I am sure that my hon. Friends do not mean to suggest that we shall have 190,000 tons of beef in intervention in the United Kingdom. There is no question of that happening. It is a bit much to go from 14 tons to 190,000 tons. Let us remember that in the present situation, with temporary intervention, only a freak 14 tons of beef have been taken into intervention in Northern Ireland.,
I now turn to the amendment. What I am trying to get through to my hon. Friends—I say that in the kindest possible way—is that we agree with their objectives. But I want them to understand why we cannot accept the amendment. I shall give three reasons and I deal with the least important first.
First, because my hon. Friends say that by and large they cannot approve the package, it does not make sense for us to throw it out. We are in the middle of negotiating it.
Secondly, the amendment takes the line—this was a point that was picked


up, and not unfairly, by the Opposition—that we are opposed to all increases in the price of foodstuffs. With inflation running at its present rate how can we suggest that we can produce food in this country without having some increase in farm prices?
Thirdly, and most important, the amendment does not ask us to secure the option to implement a variable premium with support buying or anything else but to secure a situation in which all the other member States will adopt our system. We cannot reasonably undertake to come home with that result. What we are trying to achieve—I am sure that the bulk of my hon. Friends will agree on this—is the option whereby any country, including Britain, can introduce the variable premium system and the system of guaranteed prices which we had

Division No. 60.]
AYES
[11.45 p.m.


Atkinson, Norman
Lamond, James
Snape, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Spearing, Nigel


Bidwell, Sydney
Lee, John
Stallard, A. W.


Biffen, John
McCusker, H.
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)


Body, Richard
Madden, Max
Stoddart, David


Bradford, Rev Robert
Marten, Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Buchan, Norman
Mendelson, John
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cryer, Bob
Mikardo, Ian
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Thompson, George


English, Michael
Moate, Roger
Watt, Hamish


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Molloy, William
Weetch, Ken


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Molyneaux, James
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wigley, Dafydd


Henderson, Douglas
Prescott, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hooley, Frank
Price, C. (Lewisham W)



Hutchison, Michael Clark
Richardson, Miss Jo
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Roderick, Caerwyn
Mr. Russell Kerr and


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Ross, William (Londonderry)
Mr. Martin Flannery.


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Sedgemore, Brian



Kinnock Neil
Skinner, Dennis





NOES



Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. J. D. Dormand and




Mr. James A. Dunn.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided in the affirmative, because it was not supported by the majority prescribed by Standing Order No. 31 (Majority for Closure).

Mr. Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Walter Harrison): Not named, Sir.

before, and which can modify the commitment to the Exchequer through some system of support buying or some other sensible arrangement. We cannot have unlimited liability on public funds.

If we look at the whole position we have first the question of prices—

Mr. Buchan: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: This is one of the most important discretions given to the Chair. I have decided to accept this motion tonight. It must not be regarded as a precedent. The Chair regards each of these matters in the circumstances as they arise.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 54, Noes 1.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I respectfully ask your guidance on what is the status of the motion as it now stands? The Question not having been put, does the motion remain on the Order Paper until it is brought forward, or has it died?

Mr. Speaker: I am told, having taken advice in the limited time available, that it is what is described as a "dropped order".

EEC (CONSUMER PROTECTION)

11.56 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Alan Williams): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1270/74.
I am surprised and delighted to find so many hon. Members here to discuss consumer protection at this time of night. I think that it is a recognition of the importance of the item we are about to debate. I welcome the opportunity to hear what will no doubt be the balanced and considered views of hon. Members on the new initiative and new emphasis coming from the EEC on consumer protection.
In opposition, along with many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I was frequently critical of the Community for its producer-orientation, and therefore, I am glad, as I am sure most hon. Members are, to see this recognition in the document of consumer rights, not merely in the market place, where, of course, they have their own importance, but—even more important—in policy formation in the Community. Many of us must wonder whether, for example, the common agricultural policy would have evolved into the form we now see had there been proper consumer participation earlier in the deliberations of the Community countries.
I make it clear that this document is purely consultative. If anything, it is a statement of faith as far as the consumer is concerned. It is not a decision to legislate. It lays out a philosophy, a framework and an approach, but it does not require any specific legislative consequence as a result of our deciding that we agree with it.
There may, at a subsequent stage, need to be measures to implement some of the intentions expressed in the document, but any such subsequent policy would have a legislative effect would come separately to this House for consideration. The House will have an opportunity to discuss, express views and, if necessary, vote upon any legislative proposals.
Indeed, many of us will welcome the document simply in the sense that it recognises the need for others to do many

of the things we have already done. Much of what is referred to in the document is already enshrined either in our machinery for consumer protection or in our legal defences for the consumer.
The document, as a result of discussion and consultation, has already been amended, but this debate gives an opportunity to the House, before a final document is submitted to the Council of Ministers, to express those views it would like our representatives to take into account in finalising the form of the document which will be put eventually to the Council of Ministers.
As to the precise contents of the document, I believe that its basic assertions are, in general, acceptable to everyone. It establishes that the consumer has the right to protection over a range of subjects which were discussed by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), by myself and by many other hon. Members in great detail during the proceedings on the Fair Trading Act in relation to health, safety and economic interests.
Secondly, it establishes that there should be a right of redress. Not very long ago the House discussed implied terms and legislation to eliminate exclusion clauses in relation to consumer goods. We hope that at an early date we shall have a chance to do the same in relation to services.
It also establishes the right to information and education. This reflects some of the provisions already contained in the Fair Trading Act. Finally, within the EEC concept—which is very important to all hon. Members regardless of their views on the EEC—it establishes that there should be a right to representation. I think that we all accept that over the past development of the EEC there has been a sad deficiency with regard to consumer participation in policy making.
Both Governments have made innovations in the process of consumer representation and participation. The Conservative Government created a Minister of Consumer Affairs. This Government took the matter a stage further and created a Ministry of Consumer Affairs. There is the Office of Fair Trading. There will soon be a National Consumer Office set tip by the Government as a national consumer agency. Our own machinery and


legislation already covers much of what is envisaged in this document.
As regards health and safety, paragraphs 16–18 aim to ensure that goods and services are safe for the normal foreseeable circumstances in which they will be used. We realise that need. Indeed in 1961 the Government passed the Consumer Protection Act, in 1955 the Food and Drugs Act, in 1963 the Weights and Measures Act. As a result of those measures considerable protection is now afforded in terms of the composition of goods, additives, contaminants, description and labelling.
One area where we do not, perhaps, have legislative protection is the need for the withdrawal of goods which may represent a health hazard. Until now we have worked amicably and reasonably effectively on a voluntary basis. At this stage I am considering the need for a "seize-and-desist" power to be exercised either by the Government or by the Director-General of Fair Trading. This will provide an important extra armament for the Government. It is an important extra protection for the consumer. It will offer speedier protection.
Since this is the consideration stage, I welcome the views of hon. Members on both sides as to whether they feel that this would, in their view, as in mine, be a helpful addition.
Similarly, in regard to the economic interest of the consumers, as mentioned in paragraph 20–22, we have completed, on the second occasion, the throes of the Consumer Credit Act. We have passed the Fair Trading Act and the Trade Descriptions Act, the Sale of Goods Act, and the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act—which is about to be modified, we hope, as a result of a Private Member's measure. Measures have also been passed to deal with advertisements. The Government will be watching to find out whether the new control system is effective.
In an earlier debate hon. Members criticised the time taken by Treasury Bench speakers. We accept that. Therefore, I shall not go into all the difficulties, which are familiar to hon. Members. However, it may be helpful if I indicate some points of substance where we have achieved changes and one or two areas where we still seek changes.
We achieved a change in paragraph 16 (a)(ix). We found this unacceptable. It required prior approval of an unspecified range of new products before marketing. Although we did not object to the basic protection intention, it seemed to be a sledgehammer approach. We suggested, and it was accepted, that it would be sensible to modify it to allow marketing without the need to go for only positive prior approval where products met already existing harmonised or national standards. It seemed to be a bureaucratic icing on the cake to require this additional procedure where clear standards were laid down and where products clearly met those standards.
Again, in paragraph 18, there has been a modification. This is the proposal for pre-authorisation of schemes for new products used in the manufacture of food, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. In its original form, it was cumbersome and would have restricted product innovation. A less restrictive form has been considered, and, although pre-authorisation will be necessary for certain products, the list is still to be agreed. But it would be absurd if a new type of biscuit, for instance, had to go through this procedure. All we want is to combine sense with consumer protection and to agree a practical common sense approach which will in no way endanger the consumer's position.
We are seeking agreement on a couple of other issues. One concerns paragraph 16 (a)(viii). Under the existing form, substances used in food require to be defined and their use regulated by positive lists. We have no objection to positive lists in principle, but we are trying to ensure that such lists are used in a practical way, otherwise there will be a constant stream of applications resulting in an unnecessary log jam. Again, it is a balance of practicality against all-embracing consumer protection.
We are also trying to amend paragraph 16(a)(x). This may be extending somewhat the intentions under the paragraph, but we believe that, in addition to covering adulteration of products in a way which is injurious to the consumer, it is possible to have adulteration which, although not harmful, is still unacceptable, such as adulteration by an unpleasant smell or flavour. An example of this is to be found in yoghurt, which,


if packed in certain plastics, takes on a certain plastic flavour. Therefore, we are trying to extend the paragraph to cover tainting. As yet, there is no agreement about it.
The programme before us envisages implementation within a period of four years. Looking at the whole range and remembering our deliberations about our own legislation, I think that that is a little optimistic. But it is optimism that we should not deter on behalf of the Market countries, because I welcome the new degree of priority for the consumer that it recognises.
The document does not preclude the possibility of more comprehensive protection at a later stage, which again this House will have an opportunity to consider and to discuss. This is purely a discussion document requiring no change in British law at present. Any changes which arise as a result of the philosophy expressed in it will have to come to Parliament for scrutiny and discussion. This debate is our opportunity to express our views on the document and even on the shape and form of any consequential documents which may be of interest to hon. Members. The Government wish to support a resolution at the Council supporting this document, subject to the views of hon. Members, which we will try to embody as far as we can in the further discussions and subject to our ability to reach agreement on some of the outstanding points.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Do I have the right document? In the one I have, the last paragraph on the first page says that,
in accordance with the obligations which it hag undertaken, the Council is required to take a decision on this draft before 31st July 1974.
Could that be explained?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend is referring to Document R/1270/74—

Mr. Leadbitter: Yes.

Mr. Williams: —he is absolutely correct, but it is purely a statement of intent. It is not a statement that there is to be any specific change in legislation. It merely sets a framework within which any future consumer protection legislation or directives would be devised.

12.11 a.m.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Like the Minister, the Opposition broadly welcome the document and are grateful for his explanation of both the document and its background. I should have thought that the answer to his hon. Friend is that the Council is a little late in approving the document. It was originally intended that it should be approved last summer, but it was referred to a working group, which I believe is still dealing with it. It will come before the Council of Ministers in the comparatively near future for approval, but of course it has no legislative force. This is simply a programme setting out the kind of things that the Community wishes brought in in this field.
As I said, this is a useful and sensible document. It is interesting in that it shows the difference between the European and British approval to matters like this. It has about it a more systematic flavour than ours. We have a pragmatic or selective tradition, picking out the things that we think are worth doing, whereas the Commission tends to go back to square one, work through the whole procedure and produce a tidier approach. Although there are risks in this—it may lead to a bureaucratic flavour—it may be something from which we can also learn.
It is worth asking whether there is any real need for such a programme. Everyone now believes that consumerism—if I may use that rather inelegant term—is desirable and that a great deal of formal consumer protection is necessary. We are all, in a sense, consumers now. But it is worth asking why the EEC should think that this is an area in which it should act.
However strongly one believes in the EEC, as I have come to believe in it, it still makes sense to recognise that the phrase "because the EEC says so" is not normally an all-sufficient answer.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that the hon. Member was one who voted for the terms that this country accepted. Does he not realise that, if there is to be equal competition and a market which covers all the nine countries, to have rules, country by country, protecting consumers over such


matters as safety, size and standards, would be impossible, and that therefore there must be a complete harmonisation of all sorts of standards, whether a good thing or a bad thing, over the whole area? Surely, if he does not understand that, he has missed one of the objectives of the Market.

Mr. Raison: I was coming to that point. I was going to say that I believe that decisions should be taken, where possible, at the lowest level compatible with efficiency. Therefore, I do not start from the point of view that we should necessarily decide matters on a Community basis. It is desirable to argue the case for deciding matters on a Community basis, and when we can see a case for doing so it is right to do so.
I welcome the statement of Commissioner Gundelach of the EEC that
it is not the Commission's policy to harmonise for harmonisation's sake, to order countries to change their legislation for reasons more or less connected with an ideology of integration".
That is basically a sensible approach, and people must realise that it is now the EEC's attitude. Nevertheless, we are talking about a common market. The heart of the EEC is the notion of a common market. If it is increasingly to be governed by the same rules for competition as goods and companies more and more cross frontiers, the case for evolving common consumer standards becomes more powerful.
The Minister said that the EEC had tended to be producer-oriented rather than consumer-oriented and seemed to be welcoming something of a conversion. I am not sure that he was entirely fair to the EEC. There is in the Treaty of Rome genuine emphasis on the needs of consumers. The preamble states that one of the basic aims of the Community is the
constant improvement of the living and working conditions of their peoples".
That is a wide generalisation, but at least it has something to say about the consumers.
The consumer is more specifically referred to in Article 39 which, after setting out the objectives of the common agricultural policy, states that a specific requirement is
to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices".

Article 85(3) requires the provision to consumers of
a fair share of the resulting benefit
as one of the criteria for permitting "any concerted practice" and certain agreements between undertakings. Article 86 gives as an example of improper practices
limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers".
Therefore, the protection of consumers was in the minds of the people who framed the treaty. Nevertheless, I agree that the sort of development we are seeing is required.
I accept that it is important to be sensitive when applying or postulating consumer protection measures. We are talking about nine different nations and nine different cultures, and to try to push down the throat of each nation measures which may be generally beneficial requires a certain amount of delicacy. I am not sure why the Commission refers in the document before us to the standardisation and harmonisation of toys. It may well be that there is more to this than meets the eye, but this is the sort of matter about which the Commission must be careful. It is easy for people to say, "What on earth is this all about?" This is the type of point we should take up in our discussions in the Common Market.
The changes which the Minister has told us the Government have pressed for successfully seem, on the face of it, to be sensible. I cannot comment in detail, but I should have thought that in principle this attempt to debureaucratise was proper. The overall impression of the programme is that it is sensible, but it foreshadows for the EEC many schemes which we in this country have already launched. We may be down the growth league, but we are pretty well up the consumer protection league.
I can legitimately claim that what has been achieved for the consumer has been, to an extraordinary extent, the work of Tory administrations, and particularly the last Tory administration. The Department, in paragraph 4 of its memorandum covering the document we are considering, states:
In many of the areas where Community action is proposed, the United Kingdom already gives extensive legislative protection to consumers, through measures such as the Consumer Protection Act, the Trade Descriptions


Act, the Fair Trading Act and the Consumer Credit Bill now awaiting Royal Assent".
The last measure has since reached the statute book. I think that I can point out with fairness that the Consumer Protection Act 1961, the Fair Trading Act 1973, and, in effect, the Consumer Credit Act, were all Tory measures, as were the Weights and Measures Act 1963 and a number of other important pieces of legislation.

Mr. Alan Williams: For the record, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have brought in a political dimension, I accept his point about the Fair Trading Act, but surely he will accept that nothing has been more all-party than the Consumer Credit Act, in the sense that the Labour administration set up the Commission to investigate that matter and brought the Act, modified as a result of our consultations, to the statute book. Throughout, I paid credit to the work done by the Tory Opposition. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will give some credit to the Labour Government.

Mr. Raison: In that spirit I am happy to do so, but I think that I am justified in paying particular credit to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) because, whatever our views on this sphere, his contribution has been exceptional. Indeed, he managed to transform not only a great deal of the law, but the whole climate in which we approached the matter.
The Minister has pointed out the extent to which, already, in our legislation, we have covered the kind of matters being postulated by the Community in its programme. I shall not go through the list to reinforce that point. However, we must recognise that we have not done everything that has to be done. It would be a mistake to be arrogant about our achievements in this sphere. I think that we can reasonably expect the stimulus of membership of the Common Market to prove valuable to us in developing our consumer protection policy, just as I am sure that we have a great deal to offer to the Community.
Looking at the document, some critics may argue whether, at times, the programme underplays the power of the consumer, particularly in paragraph 7.

I think that those who work, as I did to an extent, in what might be called the consumer-oriented industries, look on the consumer as a more powerful being than paragraph 7 tends to imply. I used to work in the magazine industry where my whole time seemed to be spent worrying how to attract the consumer. In that industry one does not dictate terms to readers.
The whole business of market research which has grown up is, on balance, very much on the side of the consumer, though I am prepared to accept that there are times when that may not be so. Nevertheless, I cannot help admiring the way that the programme firmly quotes from Adam Smith who said,
the interest of the producer ought to be attended to only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer.
Perhaps, like other observations made by Adam Smith, that sounds a bit strong for modern tastes. Nevertheless, it is not a bad sentiment to find in this kind of document.
The Minister told the House about the objectives which are set out in the programme. I believe that they are essentially sensible and provide a good basis for advance. But, as I have implied, when we implement them it will be important not to be over-bureaucratic. For example, we should use voluntary methods whenever possible. This is a course that we have adopted in our approach to the question of advertising. However, I felt that the EEC Economic and Social Committee was right to stress this point when giving its opinion on this programme.
It is damaging to over-regulate, over-research, and over-bombard the population, particularly when we may feel that national Governments or other organisations are doing the job adequately, because I am sure that there is risk of a counter-reaction.
One point in the programme that caught my eye, my being interested in education, was the proposal in paragraphs 46 and 47 to make sure that consumer education was provided in schools. I belong to the school of thought which, by and large, believes in education in the traditional sense—that children should learn to read and write, and various matters like that.
I am allergic to people who, always with very good motives, come up with brilliant ideas about what should be rammed into an already overcrowded curriculum. Therefore, I would not be particularly happy about the idea that the Common Market should tell our schoolmasters that they must provide consumer education. I am not saying that it should not be provided, but our tradition of seeing that these things are decided, by and large, by our own educators rather than by bureaucrats, British or foreign, is a good tradition. This proposal is not something that I want to see implemented, so perhaps the Minister, in consultation with the Department of Education and Science, will at least query the wisdom of this provision.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is at least possible that the voluntary code of which he speaks so highly does not work so well in respect of advertising, and that our schoolchildren need innoculation against the advertisers?

Mr. Raison: I do not know whether I would agree with that. It would be a mistake to get involved too much on that question. If the Government allow us to debate consumer protection in that respect we can talk of such matters.
I welcome the document as a general statement but, absolutely rightly, we shall give particular close scrutiny to its implementation. As the Minister hinted, it raises a very important question which is now beginning to loom large in this area of consumer protection. That is the business of consumer representation and, indeed, participation in important decisions. We are beginning to put our toes in the water here, but we have not got all that far. The EEC Economic and Social Committee has expressed the belief that consumers should have equality of consultation on, for example, anything affecting prices, and that the European Communities should involve consumers in planning medium-term and long-term economic development. In this country we sometimes have rather fevered debates on the question whether, for example, the CBI should have a say in the formulation of the social contract, and so on. We have not gone far in that direction, or in saying whether there should be

some kind of consumer representation in the formulation of that kind of policy.
I do not claim to know the answer to these questions. It is a complicated matter. One of the difficulties is that when one talks of consumer representation at this sort of level one must be sure that it is a genuine representation rather than a nominated representation. There are big problems in that respect. Nevertheless, this is an example of the way in which the Community is able to raise with us important questions in an area in which, as I said earlier, by and large we think we have not done too badly. Our membership of the EEC will help to stimulate our thinking on this matter. The kind of steps envisaged in this programme are steps we should welcome, and we certainly do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I remind the House that this debate is to end at 1.25 a.m., when the time limit lapses.

12.28 a.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: My purpose in rising to speak is to make a complaint and to point a contrast. The contrast is that the debate which we concluded a little while ago—a debate that affected the interests of consumers in very material ways and which was extremely unsatisfactory in its nature, as are all debates on Common Market matters—took place in circumstances in which the House knew that it was in no position to take any decision which would have any weight or effect. We were participating in that debate, and now again in this debate, in a rather elaborate charade. I do not regard this as a genuine attempt to consider the subject of consumer protection.
We are told that there are no legislative consequences. Our fears are calmed. We are being consulted on a document which refers to a decision being required by 31st July last year. We are being consulted by means of a document on which we are given certain indications that some changes have been made and certain other changes are being sought. Yet we know that whatever the opinion of the House on the matter we have no power to affect the result. The House is turned into an extremely elaborate and expensive pressure group, and that is not


the purpose for which my constituents sent me here.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that while the document itself does not require any changes in United Kingdom law,
When the specific directives mentioned in the Programme are brought forward for approval there are likely to be implications for U.K. law; but these cannot be determined until the relevant draft directives have been submitted by the Commission.
We are spending an hour and a half considering an Alice-in-Wonderland affair. None of my constituents, producers or consumers, will know anything about this debate, and there is no need for them to worry about it because it does not matter twopence. I regard that as a serious state of affairs.

Mr. Spearing: Did my hon. Friend notice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection was here for the Front Bench speakers? I presume it is my right hon. Friend who will be going to Brussels. She is now no longer here and I am sorry, because my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and if the Secretary of State is not here how can she take the views being expressed with her to Brussels?

Mrs. Wise: I fully accept my hon. Friend's point. There is an instance of "the truth will out" in paragraph 4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states that
It is not possible to say, until specific proposals are brought forward, whether Community action in these and other fields will call for the U.K. to adapt its approach to these problems or to alter its existing practices.
We cannot decide whether we shall need to alter our laws or practices. We have to wait to see whether we shall be required to adapt our laws in order to fit in with things from on high.
There is also the statement in the Explanatory Memorandum that this very extensive programme would, for the main part, be implemented in the form of directives primarily designed to harmonise member States' laws in these matters under Article 100 of the treaty. The primary objective of the House, therefore, will be to decide not on the best possible aproaches to consumer protection but on how to harmonise our

situation with that of the other EEC states. I regard that as extremely unsatisfactory.
There is a certain irony in what my hon. Friend told us about the changes that the Government have achieved or are seeking. Take the example of para. 16 (viii), on page 7, where the document reads
Substances which may form part of or be added to foodstuffs should be defined and their use regulated by reference to clear and precise positive limits.
If that were a suggestion for legislation in the House I would support it. It seems ironic that the Government are seeking to modify that on the grounds that it would be bureaucratic. What happened earlier tonight makes any suggestion that such lists would be bureaucratic quite comic.
We had an example of the way in which the Common Market matters will operate in relation to the consumer not only earlier tonight, on intervention buying, but a little while ago, on the question of minimum weights. The document before us talks about the right of consumers to have information. We had information about our legal entitlement concerning the weight of many of the goods we buy. The Common Market proposed to take away that right to information. We had the right to redress on that point. We could complain and know that our complaint had substance. That right is being taken away. We are told that if our packet of cereal is a little underweight someone else's packet must be a little overweight. As some one who has spent quite a proportion of her life buying goods in shops, I do not regard that as adding to my rights, but rather as withdrawing important rights with regard to both information and redress. That brief debate took place a few weeks ago.
Whatever the views of the House, when it comes to the crunch we shall not be able to reject this provision, whether we like it or not. [Interruption.] I was not here for that debate. I was in the same position in relation to it as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in relation to this debate—I read about it in Hansard.
One of the most important statements made in the House since I became a Member was made on 19th December,


when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, dealing with complaints about the powers of the House to debate Community documents, said:
The basic difficulty is that Parliament has lost its sovereignty over this whole area of legislation which applies to the people of this country and the most we can do is discuss these points."—[Official Report, 19th December 1974; Vol. 883, c. 1898.]
That is exactly the situation we are in tonight. We can discuss. We cannot have genuine or effective influence on the matters under discussion. I regard that as the greatest disservice we could do to consumers and the citizens of this country.

12.38 a.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise), who is evidently well able to look after herself, is not the only hon. Member who has been struck by the contrast between this debate and the one which immediately preceded it. We are used in this House—it is part of its character—to a quite Galilean suddenness with which calm succeeds storm. But the contrast presented by these two debates—in terms of both their subject matter and their content—is not merely interesting but could be of constructive value for the future. That is why I am particularly glad to see in his place on the Government Front Bench a representative of the Whips' Office, because I know that he—like all his colleagues, but he in particular—is very attentive to note the points made by hon. Members and to report them in the proper quarter. I am sure that the points which have been made by the hon. Lady, and which very briefly I wish to address to the House, will be brought to the attention of the Lord President of the Council, within whose province, more than that of any one else, they belong.
The paper before us, of which we are invited to take note—I imagine that in this case the question will be allowed to be put—is a very remote and tentative document. We read at the end of the Explanatory Memorandum that may be when the working group has completed its work early in the autumn the programme will go to the Council of Ministers and then they may accept a resolution approving the objectives and

the priorities, but that will only be the start. Beyond that lie four years during which, more or less, that programme will be implemented, in so far of course as it is not already part of the law of this country, because the Minister said that these points are largely covered by our own law.
So, although this is perhaps an interesting subject of discussion, there is no pressing immediacy about it, and it is a strange contrast to come to this from a document on which a decision is to be taken elsewhere after it has been modified in unforeseeable fashion by the end of this month, a document, moreover, which will affect—and directly affect without further interposition of any kind by Parliament—the fortunes of one of our most important industries and the experience of all the consumers in this country.
With those two documents together before the House in this sitting, it was decided to share equally between the two the three hours which were rendered available in total. There could scarcely be—I say this with all due respect to the contributions that have been made and will be made to the debate—a more grotesque disproportion than that in the allocation of time.
As this matter is remote and uncontroversial, I am sure that the House will be allowed to come to a conclusion at any rate on whether it is to take note or not. But on the last matter, where there was a specific amendment before the House, where the House had the opportunity of taking a decision, that opportunity was deliberately denied to it by the Government, so that in the end the House was left without even having taken note.
I believe that we should point to certain practical remedies, which are within the power of the Government, for some of the cruder aspects of the spectacle this evening of which we are now witnessing the second scene. I put forward two suggestions. Neither of these will in any way impede the total management of time by the Government or by the Leader of the House.
The first is that we should not treat an hour and a half—which, of course, is a figure derived from our proceedings under the negative procedure on statutory instruments—as the modulus for dealing


with EEC matters. We might be so bold, sometimes, as actually to allow as much as two hours, or even two and a half hours, for a matter of more importance, even though that might mean limiting to an hour matters of somewhat less importance. You will observe, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how modest my suggestions are and how I am deliberately confining them within the assumption that no further time in all is desired to be made available by the Leader of the House.
The second suggestion I have to make is this. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just because you are Deputy Speaker, were not able to witness—it was a painful sight, and many Members were deeply moved by it—the distress of Mr. Speaker in the Chair during the previous debate, when he found himself tormented by the fact that, quite clearly on a matter of the greatest importance, it was impossible for anything resembling a serious debate to be fitted into the available time. In the course of those proceedings attention was drawn to the fact that more than half the time was expended by those who were opening and closing the debate.
The suggestion which I should like to make is that as a matter of practice we should in this respect follow the procedure in the hour-and-a-half debates on negative motions and Prayers that there should be one speech only from the Opposition Front Bench and that there should be, if possible—this will not always be possible—one speech only from the Government Front Bench. That would lose very little, if I may say so, at least as regard speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, and it would certainly increase the opportunities available to back benchers.

Mr. Alan Williams: I am interested in the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making. He is being very constructive, as he has been previously. For guidance, however, may I ask him whether, if there were to be only one speech from the Government Front Bench, it would be appropriate for, say, myself this evening to speak at the beginning to try to pinpoint the items on which we regard discussion as appropriate—or would it be right for me to speak at the end? If I did not do that, hon. Members would say that I was not answering their points. At which stage would the right

hon. Gentleman say that it would be appropriate for me to speak?

Mr. Powell: I appreciate the point. It arises to some extent in the discussion of statutory instruments. No doubt the Minister in charge would be able to feel or ascertain what were the wishes of the House. I envisage, however, that the Minister might well need quite normally to seek the permission of the House to speak again. But I submit that two speeches as a matter of course from the Opposition Front Bench are overloading the time.
If I may venture to say so, and perhaps this is the most risky thing I have said, I am very grateful indeed to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having permitted me to use the subject matter of this debate to reflect upon another, because I feel that what I said is in the minds of many hon. Members who take part in these debates and that, although we cannot have a remedy for the difficulty felt by the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South-West without measures very much larger than these—indeed, without getting ourselves out again of the impossible constitutional position into which we have got—nevertheless we can ameliorate things for ourselves, I hope, by agreement during the next few months.

12.48 a.m.

Mrs. Millie Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) have concentrated on the difficulties of dealing with such a generalised document as is before us and with the procedural problems that the whole debate on this and other subjects concerning EEC documents involves.
I should like, however, to return to the document itself, because certain aspects of it should not be overlooked. I refer first to the comments made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) from the Opposition Front Bench regarding the intentions of the Treaty of Rome concerning consumers.
The tragedy is that they have remained intentions. Had they been otherwise it would not now be necessary for us to be receiving a document which envisages a four-year programme by introducing the very consumer protection measures


which to a large extent have already been accepted in this country.
Reference has already been made to the quotation from Adam Smith and the interests of the producer being attended to only in so far as that may be necessary for promoting the interest of the consumer. The objectives of Community policy are to secure for the consumer the satisfaction of his real needs at the best prices by the development of an economic policy which takes his interests fully into account.
The "dropped" document contains the very antithesis of the sort of policy which the Commission document sets out. For example, there is a reference to wine. It is said that it is probable that the present surplus will continue. Presumably a wine mountain is anticipated instead of a butter or beef mountain. No doubt we shall be able to envisage another crisis coming about which will eventually work to the detriment of the consumer in the same way as the previous surplus mountains.
In the final paragraph of the "dropped" document we are told that in 1974–75 in the fruit and vegetable sectors productions will be considerably below that of previous years and that adequate prices can be expected. I submit that adequate prices in that document are contrary to the concept of protection of the consumer in the other documents which we are discussing. There is such hypocrisy in the generalised document that much of it is mealymouthed window dressing. So little of it can be practically applied to consumer problems in this country.
I take up the point of Britain being so far in advance of other countries. In some areas we are in advance, but in others we are not. The whole consumer protection situation is patchy. But that is not to say that others are better off. We have been building up effective consumer protection. I think that we would wish that to continue. There are many areas in which further protection is necessary. As a member of the Crowther Committee on consumer credit, I consider that it was a most important advance to introduce legislation. I doubt very much whether the harmonisation which is envisaged in the Consultative

Document will ever give, throughout the EEC, the kind of consumer credit protection that we have given ourselves. I must point out the irrelevance of the document to most areas of consumer protection.
I do not wish to raise any controversy between us, but I must question the claimed attributes of the previous Conservative Government in consumer affairs. I notice that the destruction of the Consumer Council was omitted. If ever there was a disservice to consumers and an opportunity missed to show an example of the way in which consumer affairs might have been dealt with had we been going to give examples to the EEC, that was the chance that the previous Conservative Government deliberately destroyed.

12.55 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: I fully understand the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that we might have spent rather more of our time discussing agricultural prices within the three hours devoted to the affairs of the European Community. We ought, however, to spend some time giving a welcome to this document, because it is the first statement of consumer policy to come out of the European Commission. It is important that the policy should get off on the right foot and I believe that it has.
The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller) said that the document was mealy-mouthed and my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that it was couched in European language. That may be so. As far as I can make out it is a re-statement of British Government consumer policy over the past five years. I understand that it is a product of a former Secretary of the Advertising Standards Authority, Mr. Jim Braun, who brought to the work of the European Commission a thorough knowledge of consumer protection work in this country. It is not surprising that this document is fully compatible with the work that has been done here. Little amendment of our law will be necessary in the four-year programme.
I share with my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady a dislike of hamonisation for its own sake; yet in this area it is vital for the protection of the consumer that


there should be a substantial degree of harmonisation. Consider the issue of safety. The European Consumer Unit of the Consumers Association paid for by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, has spent a considerable amount of time recently in looking into the whole question of consumer attitudes towards an understanding of household symbols. As products cross frontiers many can be a potential danger to users. It is vitally important that we harmonise the symbols and warn users that they are dealing with something that could be dangerous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was doubtful about the harmonisation of toys. Unfortunately, toys can be dangerous. The harmonisation proposed here will be on their safety standards, so that if a child licks a toy soldier made in Germany he is at least as unlikely to get lead poisoning as he would be if he licked a toy soldier made in this country.
A great deal of harmonisation still needs to be done on safety. The document is merely a guide. The question is whether it will remain a guide or become the basis of practical work. That depends on the resources that the Commission devotes to the subject in the next four years. I should like to hear from the Minister the Government's view of the amount of resources the Commission should provide. At present the Commission gives a grant of £20,000 a year to the Bureau of European Consumer Unions. That is not much. Do we think that it should be increased? Do we think that the staff of the Consumer Protection Commission in Brussels should be increased and its budget enlarged? Unless that is done the document, which is a worthy one, will remain a document and very little else.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I welcome back my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection of whom I made some rather harsh remarks. I hope that my right hon. Friend will read the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) and remember that it was delivered with the clarity of expression which is her own characteristic.
I disagree almost entirely with the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). I cannot welcome the document, and I note it with distaste. My hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the distance between the consumer and those who set the standards. Harmonisation takes the decision-making authority even further away from the ultimate consumer. The House will have no power to modify the harmonisation regulations or even to probe them. I do not view the document as a step towards greater consumer protection.
Neither the Minister of State nor the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) mentioned what our consumer organisations think of the document.

Mr. Goodhart: I sit on the Council of the Consumers' Association which has given a warm welcome to the document.

Mr. Spearing: I am interested to hear it, but my intervention required that comment to be made. In some ways the document is pardoxical and hypocritical, and I will give an example. When I first came to the House I took an interest in the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council. One of the most remarkable reports produced by the National Board for Prices and Incomes was on fuel prices. It showed that the pithead price of domestic coal was £4 or £5 a ton and the cost to the consumer was £20 a ton. The Industrial Coal Consumers' Council was at least able to consider that report.
I understand that both the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council and the Industrial Coal Consumers' Council had to be wound up as a condition of our entry into the European Coal and Steel Community. I can think of no way in which such an obligation on this country was a furtherance of the principles contained in this document. We traded a real and potential consumer power for a load of possible claptrap.
On 29th November, after an all night-sitting, we debated Commission Document R/2628/73, substituting an average net weight for the present net weight regulations. In this country, if one buys a package which contains less than the contents marked on the outside, one can go to the weights and measures inspector and a prosecution can follow. But Regulation R/2628/73 would ultimately rule that out


by introducing average net weight, and there were complicated mathematics in the regulation which I defy anyone, even with advanced level mathematics, to understand. There is no protection at all in that regulation, and the town hall and the weights and measures inspector will not be able to help. If we want real consumer protection, we shall have to keep our own. Perhaps we shall be able to, but surely we shall have to accept the Community regulations as well. But we cannot insist on the net weight protection. I do not know whether the Consumers' Association is aware of that. It should beware of it.
Paragraph 16(a)(1x) of the document is concerned with the safety of electrical goods and the need for some standardisation of safety rules. We know just how dangerous electrical goods can be. There is a European standard, voluntarily agreed, for the wiring of three-pin plugs, and there is some sense in that when electrical manufacturing companies change across the frontiers. But I do not think that it is in a directive from Brussels. I believe that it emerged from consultation between Governments. That is a more appropriate method. Let those who say that anti-Marketeers are not internationalists take note. We are internationalists, and perhaps that is basically why we are anti-EEC.

Mrs. Wise: The need is world-wide. It seems that harmonisation in the Community will not deal fully and adequately with safety matters and that we shall still need the normal methods of international co-operation to ensure proper safety in commercial standards.

Mr. Spearing: I think that my hon. Friend is right, and the point underlines what I am saying. The best and most practical protection should be achieved internationally on a voluntary basis by experts. I am not saying that the Commission will not have vast committees of expensive experts, but let us deal with particular matters on their merits and retain our right to tell our Ministers whether or not they may agree to a certain arrangement which may be made. Under the EEC arrangements, we have not that right.
There will be enormous commercial pressures on those in Brussels who are

to make these regulations and draft them. The Council of Ministers will not do the job—it will go down to some advisory technical committee. We in this House know the commercial pressures that can be exercised—hence our proposed register of interests. The commercial pressures on those in Brussels responsible for drafting these regulations will be enormous. This House will not be able to protect the British public, the consumers—our constituents—because our power will be gone.

1.11 a.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: Membership of the Common Market may not be congenial to all hon. Members. Clearly it is not congenial to the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise). However, this occasion affords us an opportunity to examine our progress against that achieved by our fellow-EEC member States.
The consideration of this document, which foreshadows the shape and direction of future legislation and is in some ways akin to a Green or White Paper, is not so very far removed from the traditional procedure of this House.
I first wish to venture a caution. It is common ground from tonight's discussion that a number of Acts dealing with consumer affairs have been passed and have achieved at least four major landmarks. This may perhaps be a time when we should not rush ahead but should allow the rest of the field to catch up, because there is more than a hint in this document of a tendency to elevate consumers to the level of a caste, a race apart, the innocence and purity of which must not be denied. If that sounds heretical, it is because I feel that there is a danger of over-simplifying the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) said that we are all consumers now. That is nothing new. The majority of people, at some time in their daily lives, are the producers or providers of goods and services to others. There is a danger that we may by this attitude, by formalising this approach, create the same caricatures as have so bedevilled relationships between landlord and tenant, and manager and worker. We should be careful not to create, by our excess of zeal on behalf of the consumer, tensions and suspicions and


artificial distinctions between different members of society by exploiting anxieties and prejudices, real though they may be. There will always be a need for protective legislation, but it seems to me that the consumers' interests can best be upheld in ways other than by means of purely negative protective Acts.
One passage in page 5 of the document causes me alarm. It is not clear what it means. It indicates that one method of achieving the objective of safeguarding the consumer is by means of consultation and participation in decisions which concern him. A certain gloss has been put on that statement by hon. Members. I hope it does not mean the kind of trendy thinking that would put teachers and pupils on boards of governors, undergraduates on the courts of universities, and workers on boards of management, all in the guise of greater democracy, because this very often means a mere blurring of separate responsibilities and functions. I hope that we shall be able to see consumers as members of society who are entitled to legislative protection but who are not incapable of making their own decisions.
Secondly, I welcome the inclusion of education as one of the methods by which the consumer may be safeguarded. However that may be achieved—it may be in schools or elsewhere—it will provide protection. A healthy market depends as much on consumer and producer as on a vigorous and healthy interaction between the two. It is far better that we should have an educated consumer who is able to fend for himself in this commercial battle of wits than an unthinking person who must depend on the State for protection in every action or purchase he undertakes. I would prefer to see prevention rather than cure. We have the beginings of a network of consumer advice centres. That is all very well, but it is expensive. Very often such centres have more experience of dealing with grievances and complaints than of advising the public on the highly technical nature of commercial trading.
I should like to see just one or two small changes of emphasis. This is a consultative document, which is open to opinions being expressed about it, and I hope that we shall be able to persuade our colleagues in the other countries of

the Market not only to follow our example in legislation but also to take a different view of the rôles of the consumer and of the producer in society.

1.15 a.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw: After listening to so many speeches on the rôle of the Community in relation to this country, I am grateful for this opportunity to comment on the rôle of the consumer.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) made a significant point when he emphasised that the consumer is not some new invention of the advertising world or some new discovery of the political biologist, but someone with whom we have the closest contact, namely ourselves. Those of us who have spent any time in industry or commerce know that the rôle of the consumer is all-important in relation to the success or failure of a product in terms of its sales and the profit made out of it, to say nothing of the wellbeing of those employed in companies and organisations.
There are two or three matters in the document which worry me. I share the general welcome given to it in that it is a framework within which steps towards greater protection can be made throughout the Community. But we have to consider carefully when the consumer's interest should be considered. In the committees established in Brussels, is his advice to be taken before that of producers or politicians? Is he to have the last or the first word? In developing a process, it is vital to take the consumer into the discussions when his influences can be absorbed and acted upon.
Then we have to get an understanding with consumers through their organisations, which need education as much as anyone else. Reference is made in the document to education being a process by which consumers are informed. But people need to understand the problems of the marketing process so that, if they wish to see average weights removed and net weights substituted, they understand that this may result in an increase in the cost per package, in fewer varieties being available and in a greater standardisation of the product. Although the consumer organisations are very effective, because they are composed of intelligent, hardworking and voluble people, they do not


necessarily represent a large number of consumers. In a given industry, a great many jobs may be put at risk as a result of an ill-timed intervention by a consumer organisation.
In page 3 of the document, there are two interesting passages. The first claims that the consumer needs protection because he has
… been confronted by a vastly greater range of goods, more complex and designed to meet a great variety of specific uses, produced in anticipation of demand rather than in response to it.
But at the foot of the same page, we read:
… the producer has a greater opportunity to select his market than the consumer has to select his supplier.
Those two statements are contradictory. It is obvious that in trying to put together a consumer programme, many people have failed to identify the real causes where protection is required—in health, in additives, in descriptions of what products contain, and so on.
Then, what is consumer satisfaction, and how can we legislate for it? I may buy my wife a pot of lanolin face cream from a well-known High Street chemist. Although there is no doubt that that will provide the greatest value in terms of pence per fluid ounce, if I buy instead the product of an American fashion house at a cost of many £s per fluid ounce, it is certain that the result will be greater consumer satisfaction. It is impossible to legislate upon such a matter without recognising that one man's meat is another man's poison.
We all understand that it is necessary for us to take the consumer more seriously in matters which are critical. Where opinion is involved, or misleading information of half-truths in advertising, there is probably more control over content than there ever is over veracity. It is in these areas that consumer protection movements and programmes must move with the greatest care. With thaw words, I wholly welcome the intentions of the document.

1.20 a.m.

Mr. Alan Williams: Having acceded to the request to confine myself to a few minutes at the end of the debate, I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I can deal with only a limited number of points.

But I will try to deal with as many as I can as quickly as I can.
In answer to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), the resources for this purpose will rise in 1975 from £20,000 to £83,000. It is still not massive, but a lot of the work is done in other Departments and therefore comes under other budgets. But this seems a small figure in comparison with what we might think appropriate. We should, for example, be sympathetic to the suggestion that the staff of the Consumer Consultative Committee should be strengthened.
The hon. Member also mentioned the warning symbols for dangerous goods. I know that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has several times raised this matter. She knows the division of responsibilities here, with another Department having certain responsibilities, but the Commission has not yet put proposals to the Council on this matter. I am referring to Document 167/73. The House will have an opportunity to scrutinise and debate the proposals when the Commission eventually submits to the Council.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Would the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to make urgent representations on this important point? Over 7,000 children are killed or injured by these substances every year. The sooner we have the regulations in this country the better.

Mr. Williams: The hon. Lady and I have always shared this concern about the priority which should be attached to the safety of goods. I will make her point of view known to my right hon. Friend and in the discussions in Brussels.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise) objected to my calling the lists of additives "bureaucratic". She said that that was comic. I would only say that people might think it comic if every item which could conceivably be put in food had to be listed on an approved list. It is a matter of balance and judgment. My hon. Friend draws one conclusion: I draw another. Inevitably, there will be some disagreement here.

Mrs. Wise: I said what I did in the context of the EEC, which is probably the most bureaucratic organisation in political history.

Mr. Williams: In that case, I am sure that my hon. Friend is with me completely when I say that it is the Government's intention to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy whenever we can.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham South (Mr. Spearing) described the document as hypocritical. Perhaps one could also call it a confession of past errors. I fully understand the strength of his feelings about the consultative councils. The Domestic Coal Consumers' Council still exists, although not with its original statutory powers it can still consider matters relevant to the consumer and make representations. But I appreciate his point.
To give hon. Members who wish to do so a chance to divide, perhaps I had better sit down at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes notes of Commission Document No. R/1270/74.

Orders of the Day — ARBITRATION BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS BILL [LORDS]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to establish a body corporate having functions relating to the establishment of standards for, the provision of standard preparations of, and the testing of biological substances, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) The payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray the expenditure of the said body corporate, and
(2) The payment of any sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — CUSTOMS DUTIES

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments),
That the Customs Duties and Drawbacks (Revenue Duties) (General) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 2036), a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. Harper.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PROCEDURE

Ordered,
That Mr. Walter Clegg be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and that Mr Peter Emery and Mr. John Page be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (DEDUCTIONS)

1.26 a.m.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: The motion as printed on the Order Paper refers to
the subject of the deduction of supplementary benefit from pensioners who take in students".
I readily concede, however, that the argument applies not only to students but to lodgers taken in by people on supplementary benefit. I have referred in the motion to students because this is how the case which caused the initiation of this debate came to my notice.
This is a particular problem in my constituency, in which we have a university, a college of technology, a technical college and a college of education. Added together, they contain a very large number of students and there is considerable difficulty in obtaining sufficient accommodation for them. Some of the accommodation is provided by what are familiarly called "student landladies". It is not necessarily the most popular type of accommodation among students, who would prefer to have their own self-

contained flats or other accommodation. But such accommodation is very expensive.
For many years student landladies have been the pillar of student accommodation in university towns. Many of them are elderly people or widows whose families have grown up and left home and who therefore have spare accommodation. I go so far as to say that most of the student landladies fall into this category. Young married couples with children often do not have accommodation for students, but widows or elderly couples whose families have grown up and left home take in students to provide extra income to augment their meagre pensions. Many of them are in receipt of supplementary benefit.
I come to the main argument that I wish to make. The objection is to the rule operated by the Supplementary Benefits Commission that one-third of whatever a student or lodger pays should be regarded as profit or as, in the official terminology, due reward for services rendered for the student.
I should like to cite an example from my constituency, although I am sure that it is common throughout the country. A lady, who wishes to remain anonymous, took in two students who paid the normal lodging fee of £8 a week each for bed, breakfast, evening meal and full board at weekends. Therefore, she received the grand total of £16 a week. As she was on supplementary benefit—this is not an isolated case; there are many in my constituency and throughout the country—one-third of that £16, namely, £5·33, was regarded as profit. Consequently her pension was reduced, allowing for the disregard of £2, by £2·33.
I have spoken to my wife about this matter. Her reaction was quite angry. She immediately said, "The people in Whitehall do not know what they are talking about. They do not know how the other half of the world lives." She added some very caustic comments which I will not repeat.
I have asked many people how much profit they would make from two students by providing a room, bed, breakfast, evening meal and full board at weekends. I have asked whether they could do that on £5·33 a week. No one has yet said that it: could be done.
No doubt the Minister, like the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission in a letter to me, will say that help will be given shortly when the disregard goes up from £2 to £4. I accept that will be useful to pensioners, but it is the principle of the thing that I want to argue tonight. The disregard is irrelevant. If a pensioner or a widow were to do a light job—for example, to patrol a school crossing—and earn a small sum in that way, that would take out the disregard.
My argument is that the rule that one-third of what the lodger or student pays should be regarded as profit is completely ridiculous in modern conditions. It may have been true 10 years ago, but it is certainly not true today.
When I inquired where the one-third rule came from, I received a letter from Lord Collison, the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, in which he said:
I understand that the average expenditure on food per head of the population of working age is less than £4 a week.
I am told that that figure is accurate. I am amazed, because people of "working age" excludes children. The argument is that we spend less than £4 a week on average on food. When I consider my own budget and the budgets of some of my friends, I can only conclude that if that figure is right many people are going very hungry in this country today. I have not met anyone who would agree that a person can be fed for less than £4 a week. For a man who has a wife and three or four children it might be possible, but it is not possible in the context that I am postulating of a landlady catering for two students. I defy anyone to do it for less than £4 a week.
The letter goes on:
The cost of providing for boarders does, of course, involve other things than food alone, such as additional heating and laundry, but I doubt if this amounts to as much as £1 a head.
I am surprised at that, too. I wonder whether Lord Collison or any of his Supplementary Benefit Commission colleagues have looked at laundry and heating costs recently. A student may be in his room only in the evening, but he still requires heat and laundry.
The result of all this is that in this category many landladies of students are beginning to say "It is not worth my while to take in students if my supplementary benefit is to be cut in this way." Let me quote from the annual report of the University of Southampton for 1973–74:
For their part, more and more landladies decided it was uneconomic to provide an evening meal, so that the majority of lodgings were offered with breakfast only on weekdays and full board on Sundays.
The report stresses how difficult it is to find sufficient accommodation.
What is likely to be the result of landladies having their supplementary benefit cut and deciding that perhaps it is not worth taking in students after all? I suggest three possibilities.
First, there would have to be a very substantially increased payment by the university or college of technology, which would increase substantially the education budget. Secondly, very many more places would have to be provided in student halls and other types of student accommodation, which would be very much more expensive than the £8 a week about which I am talking. The provision of resident student accommodation is a very expensive business.
Thirdly, a, number of students—some by choice, I admit; this is happening now—would prefer to share a flat with three or four others. That has very difficult consequences for a university town because where four or five students share a flat and pay about £5 a week each, the landlord can get £20 a week or more. The consequence of that is that many ordinary families with one or two children are priced out of the accommodation market completely. We have experienced that in Southampton, and the same applies in other university towns.
The rule that one-third of the amount paid by a student or other lodger is technically regarded as profit and therefore deducted from supplementary benefit does not take account of the rising cost of food, heating, laundry and everything else. It is years out of date. I ask the Minister to have urgent consultations with the commission to see whether this rule can be reviewed.

1.38 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alec Jones): I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Mitchell) for raising this question. I say to him quite sincerely that an Adjournment debate is a far better method of dealing with it—despite the late or early hour, depending upon one's point of view—than by a completely unsatisfactory Question and Answer session, which we have tried previously. This is a better method because it has enabled my hon. Friend to explain how he sees the so-called one-third profit rule and how it affects the availability of suitable lodgings for students. It also enables me not only to give some sort of explanation—which my hon. Friend may not necessarily accept—but also to give fuller consideration to the difficulties my hon. Friend envisages.
There are two aspects of this problem. There is the undoubted difficulty that university and college authorities have in finding suitable lodgings for students. Few of us—certainly not those of us who have had anything to do with education—are not aware of these difficulties. My hon. Friend, with his experience in the student world, is certainly aware of the problem. I start from the premise, therefore, that none of us would wish to exacerbate the situation, which is already difficult.
But then there is the other aspect, the social security aspect—namely, how the Supplementary Benefits Commission treats boarders in households of recipients of supplementary benefit. I should like, first, to place on record the present position.
The Supplementary Benefit Act under which the Commission work provides that in assessing benefit it must set a claimant's resources against his requirements. It also says that in assessing requirements the amount allowed for rent should be reduced by any proceeds of subletting, and that when a person other than a subtenant shares the accommodation the rent allowed to the claimant may be reduced by an amount attributable to that person.
The Act does not specify how the payments from a commercial boarder should be treated and this is therefore left to the Commission to decide. For

some years before 1973 the Commission operated a system which was found to be completely unsatisfactory as it affected the "multiple boarder" cases, which were where the landlady operated a business enterprise. This was rather different from the type of person to whom my hon. Friend referred.
In 1973 the Commission decided no longer to regard boarders as it had previously as making a contribution to the rent but to assess the proceeds from them solely on an earnings basis. This would mean that owing to the incidence of the earnings disregard a landlady with only one boarder would usually have her benefit hardly affected at all instead of, as had happened up to then, losing half her addition for rent.
The system which my hon. Friend criticised was an improvement on the previous one, though certainly not going as far as my hon. Friend would wish. It would be impracticable to assess in each case the actual cost of providing for the boarder, so the Commission was compelled to adopt a formula which could be applied generally across the board. Under the formula the Commission regards two-thirds of what was paid by the boarder as covering the cost of his keep and the remaining one-third as being the landlady's recompense for the work involved in looking after the boarder. I realise that this is the crux of the argument and the major difficulty outlined by my hon. Friend.
However, it is a formula which has the advantage of being self-adjusting as boarding charges increase and is comparatively easy to administer. When it is necessary to have regard for the difficulties of assessing actual charges these factors cannot be ignored. In addition, the new system could be applied whether full board and lodging for a whole week was provided or something less, in which case proportionately less might be expected to be charged and therefore less taken into account as profit.
The Commission was aware that the same formula applied to all boarders would be more generous in cases with many boarders than where there were only one or two because economies of scale can be expected when catering for a number. Nevertheless it considered that it would not be unfair to the person with one or two boarders especially since


the earnings disregard would ensure that the reduction in the claimant's supplementary benefit would often be less than the amount of rent that had previously been attributed to the boarder.
The amount of the earnings disregard, now at £2 a week, which is the level it has been at since 1966, has been overtaken by inflation and the Government are taking steps to restore the position by increasing it to £4 a week as soon as we can. I realise that my hon. Friend said that in certain cases the disregard was irrelevant, and I accept his view on that. But in a good many cases, far from being irrelevant, the disregard is not only useful but positively to the advantage of a large number of landladies.

Mr. Mitchell: I did not describe the benefit gained by the landlady as irrelevant. I used the word in connection with the argument I was pursuing about the proportion of one third.

Mr. Jones: I believe that the disregard is a material factor in the general situation. I shall use the case to which my hon. Friend referred to illustrate the point. I do not even know the lady concerned so there is no question of my disclosing anything which should not be disclosed.
My hon. Friend referred to a pensioner with two student boarders each paying £8 a week. The one-third which is now regarded as earnings come to £5·33 of the total of £16. As the disregard is today only £2, that leaves £3·33 to be taken into account, so that the claimant's entitlement to a possible supplementary pension of £2·95 is more than wiped out. But under our present proposal to raise the disregard to £4 only £1·33 is left to be taken into account, leaving the claimant entitled to at least £1·60 a week in the case which my hon. Friend described.
I am not saying that this is the perfect solution, but the landlady about whom my hon. Friend was so concerned will receive at least some help. The doubling of the disregard of earnings is in legislation going through the House. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we finished the Committee stage this morning, and we hope to implement the legislation later this year. The doubling of the disregard gives help except where there are multiple boarders, where land-

ladies are running a business rather than the type of case my hon. Friend described.
Under the revised disregard of £4, the supplementary benefit will be almost unaffected by anyone taking in one boarder, unless that boarder pays more than £12 a week. I will not bore my hon. Friend with the details, but I took the trouble to obtain information from the universities of London, Bristol, Brighton, Guildford, Reading and Liverpool. In all those places a landlady taking in one student would have nothing deducted from her supplementary benefit. Those with two students would have an appreciable improvement over the present situation. Only the lateness of the hour prevents me from discussing the figures. I am prepared to give them to my hon. Friend.
It is easier to speak of a specific case rather than the generality of cases. In the case about which my hon. Friend has told the House the Commission would regard £5·33 of the £8 which each boarder would pay as covering the cost, and the remaining £2·66 would be counted as the claimant's earnings, her recompense for the work involved in catering for her boarder.
My hon. Friend's argument is that the £5·33 is an underestimate of the cost of providing for a boarder, and that therefore the amount assessed as earnings is too high. It is difficult to arrive at the exact cost of providing for a boarder under the different circumstances which prevail. I can well understand my hon. Friend's wife's dilemma when he posed the problem. I do not think that it was very chivalrous of him to put the problem to her.
It is unfortunately true that the cost of food has been increasing. My hon. Friend suggested that the figure of £4 for food was not accurate. But it is not something that we or the Commission conjured up. It came from the National Food Survey figures for wholly adult households, which shows that in the third quarter of 1974 £3·74 a week was paid for food for each person. I have made that statement to show that we did not pluck the figure out of the air. It is based on the best calculation that we could make.
The cost of providing for boarders does, of course, include other things such as heating, laundry, and so on, about


which we all know. The Commission considers that £1 a head per week throughout the year covers those costs. If we take that figure of £1—which I know my hon. Friend is questioning—and the £4, one sees that the figure of £5·33 covers the basic cost of providing for a boarder, though I agree that there is very little to spare even on these figures.
If a claimant is not satisfied with the assessment in her case she is entitled to appeal against the Commission's decision and, in considering the case, the local appeal tribunal would not be bound to agree to the Commission's method of assessing profits if it thought it gave an unreasonable result. I say that because there may be those who feel that there is no right of appeal.
In conclusion, I should like to make two statements. First, the Supplementary Benefits Commission is obliged to take account of the earnings element in boarding charges. Supplementary benefit is a topping up of existing resources, and it would be unreasonable to pretend that we can continue the system and ignore

boarding charges and the earnings element. They must continue to be taken into account where there is a genuine earnings element.
Secondly—and I think that my hon. Friend conceded this—the Commission cannot possibly treat landladies of student boarders any differently from the way in which it treats landladies of other boarders.
Because of the fears which my hon. Friend has expressed, but chiefly because of the possibility that there may be a disincentive to landladies to take in student and other boarders and bearing in mind the problems of homelessness and associated difficulties, I assure my hon. Friend that I shall accept his suggestion and consult the Supplementary Benefits Commission about the level of charge that is assessed as income for those who claim benefit. I shall ensure that we take a fresh look at the whole problem, because I think my hon. Friend is right in drawing attention to this problem as he sees it, even at this late hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Two o'clock.